[QUOTE=oak333;42647]Statistically speaking, seasonally adjusted you can eliminate winter from Canada. Not too much weight should be given to statistics, especially for rare
phenomena.
The report you posted against the research of Dr. Piotr Garjajev does not say much. Every scientific theory had adversaries. There were literally thousands and thousands of reports against the theory of relativity, when it was first
published by Einstein.
You have here some reports about the validity of the research of Garjajev:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58242055490
As far as I remember, Dr. Piotr Garjajev was a member of the academy of science of Russia and of New York. He was actually leading a big team of
researchers. You can check it out on the net for confirmation. I just quoted from memory.[/QUOTE]
Statistics is CRUCIAL in reporting experimental results. I need to know what is probability that reported effects are chance. Without statistics I don’t know and can’t judge whether effects are real or not.
When you design experiment you need to address issues of phenomena variability and measurement errors and set “sample size” so that you end up with results that can be interpreted as positive. This guy didn’t do any of that. So I don’t know whether those results show something or not. But my intuition tells me they don’t because author didn’t present statistical analysis. As scientist he knows how important it is. So if he omitted that it may mean there was no statistically significant difference between groups and he just wanted to write paper anyway to support his theory.
Ps. This is not a rare phenomena according to this paper. Everyone is supposed to be able to affect DNA structure.
Ps2. It doesn’t matter if he is a member of science academies and there are reports on validity of his research. There are rules of scientific research and reporting. Even Stephen Hawking has to follow those. And if someone doesn’t, its not a science but probably an attempt to convince people that a theory has scientific foundations.