smoke,
Mule Deer's job is to sell his employer's magazine. If he can't do that he'll be looking for another job.
Tell me what you about about scientific methodology. Are you under the impression that shooting bullets into media is scientific? Shooting big game is scientific?
About the best both are is anecdotal. Neither are empirical. Both fall woefully shy of scientific. Therefore, Mule Deer's testing is entertainment.
Smoke, it might help were you to become familiar with
scientific methodology. That way you'll be able to tell the difference between science & entertainment.
Jus' sayin'...
A learned man (such as yourself) would actually know what empirical evidence really means. You obviously don't know and you are not going to fool anyone.
Knowledge you gain from observation or experimentation (AKA: finding [bleep] out for yourself). Results can be garnered by shooting into media or game therefore they are empirical. Or do you still think people like JB just pull schitt out of their azz just to "sell" magazines...
To be "scientific", the method must be based on empirical and measurable evidence. such as shooting into media and/or big game animals, developing/testing loads, etc, etc.
Anything else you have to offer, Professor?
Hi CLB,
Well, let's take a look at where you might have lefted when you ought to righted; that way, you'll have a clue of empirical and anecdotal"
"Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.
The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play.
Before any piece of empirical data is collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid."
Taken from
here.
So, before empirical data can be collected, we're gonna need a controlled environment, a criterion missing in blasting holes in media.
Then we have anecdotal evidence. Hold on. It gets better:
Anecdotal evidence has several definitions,
which usually relate to how certain types of evidence cannot be used to logically conclude something. We see examples of this type of evidence all the time in commercials.
A person tells us how their breath feels fresher after using a certain brand of toothpaste, or people testify to the clearing of their acne as a result of special products. This type of evidence is often used in place of clinical or scientific evidence, and may completely ignore research or harder evidence that points to an opposite conclusion.
Types of anecdotal evidence include claiming non-factual information based on the experiences of a few people, stories that would seem to contradict factual information, and word of mouth recommendations. This type of information isn�t always poorly intended or untrue, and we base a lot of decisions on anecdotes. For instance, you might want to find the best dry cleaner in town and ask a few friends to recommend someone. You usually don�t have time to perform true scientific testing on this by looking at a range of data.
We take other recommendations from non-experts all of the time. We may base our decisions about which doctors to see, who should baby-sit our kids, what travel agency we ought to use, or where we should stay on vacation solely or at least partly on advice. This advice usually doesn�t come from people who are qualified to give an expert opinion on the matter.
Taken from
here.
Hence, when you tell me that chronic is better than Thai Stix, that would be anecdotal, for there is no attempt to control your smoke_bowling. See, when you find chit out on your own by comparing Chronic to Thai Stix, what you get in anecdotal. Were you able to control your smoke_bowling, you might be able to smoke up empirical data. Now were you able to develop a hypothesis and test for it with a control & text group, then you'd have cause & effect otherwise know as knowledge, which, at this time, you're suffering extreme paucity.
