Re: This is getting ridiculous!
Posted by Maureen on October 12, 2002 at 07:16:17:
In reply to: Re: This is getting ridiculous! posted by txilar on October 12, 2002 at 06:03:49:Hi Txiler,
What I have asked for is that these tests be controlled for
reliability. No request anywhere that Catherine recant a thing. You
know that reliability of the sample can not be glossed over as an
irrelevant issue. I know that you know that.
What do you think that say...Giant Eagle...would do if they had 75%
of the products sold through Giant Eagle show up on a list they
thought could be used as a tool to assess let's just say something
like customer satisfaction (it could be taste or whatever). They
would ordinarily used the tool to feedback with their suppliers or
make decisions to drop a product. Then they find out that the people
conducting the test actually failed to control for the reliability of
the samples of all of the products tested. How important do you
think that instrument would be to Giant Eagle? Do you think they
would use it to drop a product, feed back to any supplier, to make
any decision with? I don't think that they would. I think they
would say that the test is invalid because of how the samples were
collected and therefore we can't/wont use that information for
We all want to hear the angels sing when we open that package of
henna powder. We all, I hope, want the most pure and flawless henna
powder to be found in the world. Why is it not as important to make
sure the process used to assess it be just as flawless as the henna
powder we want? I want a pure henna powder and a flawless process
for assessing it. If the exporters to the same stand with their
henna powders is being taken about this process nothing is going to
We get to make all the decisions you layed out. But we has to be
inclusive. We get to! And that we is made up of a lot of different
people with a lot of different views. In order to get to that "we"
all those people and their views must be included. If not then it is
not "we"...it is "them" and "us." "Us" becomes only those who agree
and with whatever the issue is and "them" becomes those who disagree.
The issue that "them" brings to the table is discounted, minimized
and labelleb. The invitation is for "them" to abandon their own
reality, feelings, thoughts and actions and accept the reality,
feelings, thoughts and actions of "Us." The invitation to "them" is
to essentially disappear, cease to exist and allow themselves to be
only "Us." That is what is in the invitation to "just put a spoon of
henna powder in a bag and send it for testing." When I find
the "testing" methodology to be flawed, why would I contribute to a
flawed process. That wouldn't be a rational response. My response
from list one was fix the process then I can support it and
participate. Again with list two...fix the process. And now there
is a call again for list three. Same response...fix the process.
It can get to list 153 and if the process is not fixed, it is still a
flawed process...just one that created a lot of lists that will be
irrelevant to anyone acknowledging that flawed methodology results in
unreliablle and flawed results.
It doesn't matter if someone is testing essential oils, henna powder,
IQ scores, DNA or apples. The methodology determines the reliability
of the results.
This isn't about suppliers, customers, exporters or the mailman.
This is about research methodology. When did methodology become
|Served by ruboard 2.1.1; Copyright © 1998 by Andrew Maltsev.|