- Type: SeTi
- Development: ll-l
- Attitude: Directive
@auburn I think it means that a collective and consistent vocabulary has begun to form. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that what has been identified constitutes a discrete physiological reality. I can share a thought I had recently to illustrate my point. Take colors. Everyone can recognize colors, but color is not a discrete phenomenon, it is continuous.
Also, this test suggests that a high level or precision may have been reached, but this does not also imply that a high level of accuracy is present. In other words, people can get some level of consistent results using this system, but whether or not the system is measuring a discrete phenomenon is undetermined.
As to whether or not it qualifies for publication, I don’t think so. I’ve never published any scientific manuscript, but I’m pretty that submitting manuscript for publication requires a lot of credentials. I’m not the best person to ask and I’m not sure about what the best way to go about trying to get attention from academic institutions about this project would be.
Lastly, I was impressed by the p-value for the TeFi/FeTi dichotomy. An issue I considered was that everyone knows which signals are supposed to go together, but even with this, 12/12 people agreeing on a single binary variable would also be significant.
I’m not a scientist or a statistician, but I’d like to think that I have a helpful understanding of the two disciplines. The scientific perspective is more important and I think that the only way to really do science is to follow the “rules” and to go through the correct channels. Einstein revolutionized physics, but he had a PhD and could submit his stuff to journals. This is definitely a step in the right direction, but still far away from a more formalized “test”.