[ SECRET POST #2336 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2336 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11. [posted twice]


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 081 secrets from Secret Submission Post #334.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

You are a scientist eh? Well, nothing is more irritating than people who take a single correlation, that under other statistical tests wouldn't even be significant, go 'ooh how dare you question the conclusion of this study'.

[(Anonymous)]

But no one is saying that! I would certainly expect people to criticize the study with like, you know, legitimate criticism though??

[(Anonymous)]

But I think most people are calling bullshit on the notion that the length of ring finger will likely predict penis length. They did find a correlation in the study...but it doesn't substantiate the hypothesis in any meaningful way. But, yeah, I do see where you're coming from. The study is definitely not pseudoscience.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course just because the study isn't psuedoscience doesn't mean it's not bullshit

[(Anonymous)]

DA: Agreed. Correlation does not equal causation, hence why the theory is just a theory. Theories aren't Bullshit except when hen they cite themselves as fact that's when they become BS. The paper is just a theory with correlation, it's not a scientific fact, but it's still scientific theory showing correlations/trends.

I'm a Scientist who has found enough papers that hide, exaggerate and manipulate stats . As they say there are three types of lies, the last being damned stats. And some which had been completely wrong all together.