Jan's Ability to Analyze Evidence

[Mark Probert]

Rich wrote:
> "JanD" <Ja...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:rWCdf.539581$_o.12688@attbi_s71...
>
>>"Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>>news:B%Adf.12950$oP5...@fe09.lga...
>>
>>> http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAE57.htm
>>>
>>>A recent Cochrane systematic review concluded that there was 'no credible
>>>evidence'
>>
>>ROTFLOL! My. my, what would we do woithout those words?
>>
>>ZZzz.
>>
>>*Substantial* *real* *solid* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable*
>>*significant* *credibile* *compelling* *copious* *direct*  *unreliable*
>>
>
>
> SUBSTANTIAL. Yes, evidence should be substantial, though Jan prefers such
> flimsy evidence as anecdote, which she calls "personal experience.
>
> REAL. Science deals with the real world, not the fantasy world of magical
> thinking that Jan lives in.
>
> SOLID. Solid evidence trumps the etherial every time, but Jan avoids it.
>
> CONVINCING. Jan is convinced only by whatever agrees with her prejudices and
> fantasies, and she never lets facts interfere.
>
> HARD. Why would Jan ever look for hard evidence? It might conflict with the
> hearsay and anecdote that supports her silly ideas.
>
> CLEAR-CUT. Jan likes fuzzy better.
>
> REASONABLE. Anything reasonable, Jan declares to be a LIE.
>
> SIGNIFICANT. Jan prefers the unimportant and negligible.
>
> CREDIBLE. Jan's credulity is legendary; she'll believe anything
> "alternative," even if it doesn't pass the giggle test.
>
> COMPELLING. Jan refuses to be compelled, resisting with foot-stamping
> stubbornness the most reliable of evidence.
>
> COPIUS. Why accept copious evidence when there are articles that support
> Jan's contrary anti-science views at whaleto and other whacko sites?
>
> DIRECT. Jan likes vague better. I prevents her being pinned down.
>
> UNRELIABLE. At last Jan lists the kind of research she likes best.