User talk:Mr swordfish
|Threads older than 31 days may be archived by.|
Hello, everyone! Welcome to my talk page!
I want to thank you again for your kind an intelligent response to my posts. The main reason I am writing a note here, however, is to share with you that I found the experience of attempting to share ideas on the astrology topic extraordinarily disappointing. It is obvious from the statements of 2 editors that (a) there was an a priori assumption that anyone interested in testing astrology had minimal critical thinking skills, education, and technical competency, and ironically they talk about confirmation bias!!! (b) they clearly had little understanding of the topics which they were addressing and I doubt either one of them even knows what a structural equation model, support vector machine, etc. are, (c) many of the assumptions could be demonstrated to be incorrect. For example, one of the studies was conducted by the chair of the psych dept at a community college, data analyzed by me and paper written by me and overseenn and critiqued by the chair of the Research and Evaluation Methodology dept at UF and s published full-time professor of sociology at UF. These professors found the research to be extremely well designed and executed. To be insulted, denigrated, and evaluated by individuals who have far less competency in research methods than I do was shocking. I have corresponded with distinguished professors of physics and research methods and statistics and have received great appreciation and support for the work. However, I was treated with disrespect and extraordinary supercilious haughtiness. I do not wish to defend myself or argue these points. This is not a matter of my being overly sensitive or delusional. I am sharing this only in the hope that it will be helpful. I am not wealthy but one year I donated to wikipedia during the holiday seasons because I thought it was the most worthwhile service I could think of donating to. Never again. That one person is disappointed in wikipedia is not important. What is important is that people hiding behind aliases with no biographical information and hurling verbal missiles from their protected bunkers is childish, unethical, and damaging to the good intentions of wikipedia. Wikipedia is one of the most wonderful experiments in the dissemination of knowledge. As with any large enterprise, there are always some weak areas. I am pointing an extremely weak area in hopes that it may inspire some corrective measures. As for myself, I will not be participating in the future as an editor of wikipedia. Thre is no point in engaging in discussions with individuals of lesser technical expertise who ignorantly and maliciously attack and insult others who are more competent in the subject than they are. Some dogs should be caged and quarantined from humanity. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) DavidCochrane100
PS, here is a link to a paper in one of the leading journals in SEM. I am 3rd author: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ921797 To be told that I am using buzzwords, etc. is not true. I am just underscoring the point of how extreme the mistreatment of others in these discussions is. The issue here is not personal and I don't need apologies. The issue is that a few bad apples spoil the entire barrel and the wikipedia enterprise is seriously threatened by these bad apples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCochrane100 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)