Comments on: A Few Additional Comments on the School Cases

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:07:52 +0000

Sure you have. I’ve explained to you that methodological rigor doesn’t necessarily lead to a valid conclusion. In fact, i’ve showed that in this case Dr. Chang has drawn unjustified conclusions.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:07:11 +0000

I haven’t baited anything. Unless you can find a methodological error, you’re in no position to claim Chang’s conclusion in invalid.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:14:22 +0000

And your point is wrong, since in my post analyzing Chang’s study i clearly explained why his interpretation was wrong.

Your failure to recognize that is not my problem, though you’ve done a good job baiting me into acting like it is. sheesh.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:32:32 +0000

My point is that you have yet to make an argument. You have just said “I reject the conclusion.” There is nothing you have said that merits substantive response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsedixitism

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:23:28 +0000

That clarification would make sense, if it were i and not Dr. Chang who has misinterpreted the data. But such is not the case.

The article is there for everyone to read, and compare to my interpretation. If you think i have misinterpreted the data, by all means explain how.

But please, offer something more meaningful than “well he’s the expert and you’re not”.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:42:57 +0000

Let me clarify:

[Your] data misinterpretation isn’t a methodological error [by Dr. Chang], but it’s still an error [by you].

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:32:43 +0000

Jacques, what’s the point of that point? Data misinterpretation isn’t a methodological error, but it’s still an error.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:15:51 +0000

Data misinterpretation isn’t a methodological error.

Yes. That is my point.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:07:50 +0000

Jacques,

1) Data misinterpretation isn’t a methodological error. It’s an error in .. data interpretation. And i have indeed shown that Chang et al. have misinterpreted their data.

2) My admission of error in interpreting Chang’s report clearly isn’t the error you referenced in your last post, since you referred to a “point i pretended not to see” in a post i made prior to my discussion of Chang’s report. So by all means clarify what you meant.

Beyond that, it’s rather amusing to see you attempt to use my own admission of errors against me. I guess that must mean you are a lawyer. :)

Suffice to say that i double-checked the other numbers i posted and they are all good. So you can safely rely on those. And they do pretty clearly indicate that Chang’s conclusions are erroneous.

3) Finally, if you want to believe that, using cognitive development as an example, an increase of from 7.00 to 7.05 on a 3-15 scale justifies Chang’s claim that cross-racial interaction produces an “added educational benefit” for students, i guess this is a free country and you can do that. You’re also free to believe in the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, etc.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:04:51 +0000

You think it was justifiable under strict scrutiny, and I disagree.

I have never claimed the plans are justifiable. But your account of them is factually wrong.