John_Brandt":2n27o551 said:Why would you seek to limit the number of alternative hypotheses?
That a CDT test is non-functional or unreliable must always remain as alternative hypotheses. That there may be inconsistencies as to how a CDT is applied must also remain.
I don't seek them, they just jump out at me.
Ok, I now see three possibilities. Well, four now...
1) CDT is correct.
2) CDT is inaccurate.
3) Accuracy of CDT depends on how it is done.
4) Accuracy of CDT depends on how much money is handed to the lab technician doing the test.
To me, #3 is just #2 put in a different light. And #4 is going to be a problem as long as there is corruptable human nature involved, but it still does not take away from the actual real result...
Am I missing any, really, when I limit it to it either works or it doesn't?
What does MAC have to do with any of this?
I've asked you the point of this thread a few times, which you have chosen not to respond to. This is unfortunate, John. At first, it seemed that you used an unfortunate title for the thread, one which by its very provocativeness implied an attack. Yet the post seemed to seek clarification, so I left it alone. Knowing that Peter was instrumental in bringing the CDT to BFAR to begin with, and knowing the history behind MAC's dismissal of the test, and your affiliation with MAC, the question gets painted in a completely different light though, John. You must always be aware of this. People will always, and I mean ALWAYS, think this way.
Do you disagree with Peter's numbers? Do you think that they are too high? Do you have anything to base your opinion on?
These are the questions that come to my mind.
Let me also make something clear here:
I think the numbers Peter has given are probably too high to be an average. I have always understood them to be upper estimates when applied across the board, especially given the known variability in physiological responses to cyanide exposure and the differences in species composition in various areas of the Philippines.
The hallmarks of scientific methodology are reproducibility of results, falsifiability, ability to withstand alternative hypotheses (most importantly being the null hypothesis) and "fitting in" with other generally accepted theories.
All fine and dandy, agree 100%. But the numbers listed here were always understood to be incomplete upper estimates, not based on extensive laboratory testing, were they not? I don't have some of the early papers (80's), but no where did Peter ever claim that such testing had been done... These have always been estimates based on observations and field communications. The fact is that such work would not pass such rigorous testing by scientific methodology as outlined...
Come to think of it, why would you think it could/would/should? At this point you just have me curious.
Regards.
Mike Kirda