txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
Txj,
If you do not realize that the research that you read, using qualitative methods, is 100% based on plausibility, then I cannot help you. No qualitative research anywhere in the world is based on anything but plausibility.
Even the quantitative research from which medication and medical knowledge and the like are derived are rarely based on anything called "proof." Be aware of that today. Those, all of them, are based on certain possibility of error. I am surprised that you are unaware of that. The basic knowledge that you learn about generating hypothesis or research questions is never use the word "proof." The appropriate word is to seek support for or to seek confirmation.
In any case, a study on Oliseh's motives and intentionality is definitely acceptable via the use of plausibility. If you are looking for proof, I am sorry you will never find any. Even if you talk to Oliseh how are you sure that he will tell you the truth as per his motives?
I'm quite familiar with scientific methodology, than you.
I know you cannot judge Oliseh's intent from a twitter post with any acceptable degree of confidence.
You can of course do so as junk science...and on an internet forum, it is certainly plausible.
Heck, the earth is plausibly square on the internet!
Wake me up when you decide to get serious!
Bros,
I am certain that you do not understand scientific methodology. If you did, then it should not have been a surprise to you that conclusions are based on plausibility in the use of not one but multiple methods that involve a variety of data collection methods. The fact that you are unaware of this creates a major doubt on the depth of your knowledge about research methods which I teach, BTW.
Now you assume that studying Oliseh's twitter covers the scope from which data is drawn to reach a conclusion is yet a lack of understanding on what happens here. What you need to do is to ask exactly how the study is done and not simply assume. That simple question, no matter how humbling, may actually lead to illuminating how this is done and the result may well surprise you. Currently, your feverish attempt to defend Oliseh prevents you from learning more even when that lesson may well present a much more robust defense of Oliseh himself.
First up, I'm not defending Oliseh. I am wondering why there is such a definitive conclusion in a manner that ostensibly eliminates any benefit of doubt in his favor.
Secondly, my questioning of the plausibility of your methodology, is based on the confidence limit that one could objectively assign to, based on how flimsy it is.
I understand research methodology. I am published in it, and in peer reviewed journals to boot.
To pass the conclusions you have reached on intent, based on Oliseh's tweet, as evidence of any sort of scientific rigor, has to be a joke! An absurd joke!
Txj,
You certainly appear that you are defending him by making several spurious claims. For instance, you input irrationality to the points made by several other CE members who have posted on this issue. Yet those members have cited and provided reasons for their position and those reasons are logically rational and, thus, the claim of irrationality is from a position where an opposing view is rejected because it does not conform to your own views. Note that it is possible that others can hold rational views even when they do not conform to yours.
Further, you appear unable to realize that there are several issues here and that members have chosen to focus on issues of their particular interest. Those interests are varied and they are multiple. There is no one issue that trumps the other. Your insistence that your own issue of interest trumps other considerations is quite problematic.
Now coming to the issue of methodology, I remain surprised at your claims. You do realize that there are two general types of methods -- quantitative and qualitative. Your position on this leads me to believe that your knowledge is limited to quantitative methods and to not a very clear understanding of its merits or its limitations. As for qualitative methods, you show absolutely no understanding on what it is and knowledge of specific methods under that genre.
That you have published via peer review is not particularly earth-shaking. I have published several pieces via peer review, not just journal articles but books and a college textbook. I currently edit (i.e serve as Editor-In-Chief) of a peer-reviewed journal where several of the world's leading intercultural communication scholars frequently send manuscripts for review. Further, I instruct Ph.D. students on scientific methodologies. Thus, I know in-depth, what I write about when the issues pertain to scientific methods for research.
As I said, if you wish to know how the Oliseh issue (i.e. motives of his intentionality) can be done, make the request. I will not provide the way until a humble request is made but be rest assured that motives of his intention can be studied without a need to consult Oliseh. By the way, so also can one study any text for meaning without the subject calling you on a phone to tell you want they mean. Thus, there is absolutely no need to call Oliseh to interview him before unpacking meaning from his text and relevant data. And such a study, if well articulated and written can be published in appropriate peer-reviewed publications.
Thanks for the offer, including the condescending attitude, but I'm quite confident in my knowledge of research methodology and continued use of it, both in analytical work and day to day practical use.
There's a reason quantitative methods rank much higher than qualitative methods. What I have not done here is dispute the use of qualitative methods. I have simply questioned the confidence limits that can be assigned to an analysis of Oliseh's intent from mere twitter post...All the sophistry in the world cannot diminish this one bit!
It is irrational that a CE member would cite as evidence of Oliseh's failures his reaction to being racially abused. It is irrational that a CE member would cite evidence of Oliseh's failures by citing his decision to quit the SE without recognition of the clear ineptitude of the NFF. It is irrational for a CE member to cite the commotion in 2002 in the SE camp without recognition of the failures of the NFF. That is irrational thinking fueled by bias against Oliseh.
It is curious that in a post by SO alleging criminal intent on the side of the club that your sole interest is on the intent behind his use of the word foreign. Sure it is ur right to choose what to focus on, as is my right to point to the curious nature of ur choice.
I haven't defended Oliseh at any point on the substantial issue. I have merely been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until the full story unfolds.
The complete unwillingness of folks here to give him any benefit of the doubt is itself evidence of irrationality in the reaction of CE towards any issue affecting SO.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
