You're not going to apologize, are you? Oh well. I still think I deserve it.
Flannel Jesus wrote:...random assignment is a bad thing...
Never said that.
Flannel Jesus wrote:...and large sample sizes are a bad
Never said that either.
Flannel Jesus wrote:there's nothing to think but 'geeze, this guy really doesn't get it'.
There are plenty of other things to think. I'm guessing you can't see that because you're more interested in caricaturizing my exchanges than understanding their poignancy.
Flannel Jesus wrote:You later back tracked and said that I misunderstood you, that you don't think they're a bad thing. But your language in the OP is pretty clear. It's clear to me that someone who says "First, the phrase "random assignment" seems contradictory. If "control" is the end, how can randomization be the means?
These are questions, not claims. Examining assumptions, clarification, and free idea exchanges are a far cry from "backtracking." For instance, I used the word "seem" to avoid exactly your misunderstanding.
Flannel Jesus wrote:Randomness implies no (or little) controI. The same issue arises with the notion of assignment. If assigning is happening, then the alleged randomness is compromised, if not destroyed, again defeating the purpose of control" doesn't understand even the basics of why double-blind studies are seen as valuable.
Your conflating the obvious limits
of DBRCG studies with your caricature that I don't understand the basics. I couldn't even pose the OP without a basic understanding, and in previous posts I've explained how and why my understanding is advanced
. You seem annoyed that I don't share your unexamined assumptions, which apparently has blinded you from the significance of my content.
Flannel Jesus wrote:I mean, you completely miss the entire concept of 'assigning'; just completely.
More substanceless rhetoric. I heard you the first time you said you disagreed, but you've yet to exchange an idea
with me about it.
Flannel Jesus wrote:Assigning MUST happen in a study comparing eg a drug to eg a placebo. Some people MUST be assigned one and others assigned the other. You can't have a trial comparing the two without assigning different people one of the two.
Three unexamined assumptions in a row. There's no "MUSTs" or "cant's" about it, a reflection of your unwillingness to think creatively about scientific puzzles.
Flannel Jesus wrote:What in the world is the alternative?
This is precisely the problem. You're so indoctrinated you can't imagine alternatives. Are you one of those people who believe science is progressive
Flannel Jesus wrote:And how does it compromise the randomness? That is the very implementation of the randomness! 'Randomness' refers to how people are assigned to treatment or placebo.
It's obvious that "assignment" and "randomness" are contradictory notions. What about this don't you understand?
Flannel Jesus wrote:In addition to completely misunderstanding what the word 'assign' means in this context, you've got 'control' pretty far off too. The control group in a randomized trial refers to the group that takes the placebo (usually; there are other potential control groups). Randomizing who gets put in the control group does not contradict the end of "control". You've just misunderstood what "control" means.
You've bought into the illusion. It's a common mistake, but forgivable. You don't need to keep restating the basics. I understand
them thoroughly. Familiarize yourself with the "double pendulum" phenomenon and "the butterfly effect." Individuals are complex systems, groups even more so.
Flannel Jesus wrote:Your OP was just so so so far off the mark, and backtracking is sorta good in a way when you're that far off, but the sort of backtracking you need to do is much more extreme than what you have done; instead of just saying 'no no you misunderstood', I think it's really time you just erased everything from the chalkboard, said 'I've got something wrong here' and start with a clean slate.
You've confused my clarifications and good faith attempts at free exchanges of ideas with "backtracking." I guess you're too invested in your misunderstanding of me to see that.
I will engage with the others in this thread who have shown they can refrain from caricature and demonstrated they're willing to examine assumptions via a free exchange of ideas, but unless you apologize and start acting civil
about it, I'm done interacting with you.