Top 10 Peer-Review Responses:
10. “inane”
9. “This study should be titled ‘How to Write a Bogus Study’ or, alternatively, ‘How to Manipulate Irrelevant Statistics.’ It is absolutely masterful at overloading the reader with large amounts of irrelevant information (650+ pages) with the express purpose of preventing them from doing anything with it, a tactic first presented at a congressional hearing when Dr. Gofman provided the subcommittee with a 178-page booklet containing everything he could find on the subject.”
8. [Coffee spray across office]
7. “This guy doesn’t know the difference between correlation and causation.”
6. “Thanks for the book, it makes excellent toilet paper, seeing how it’s printed on tissue by California hippies.”
5. “Who gave you a Ph.D?”
4. “Do you know the difference between leukemia and breast cancer?”
3. “Well, what do you expect out of a Berkeley hippie?”
2. “Yes, there is a relationship between doctors and heart attacks–patients don’t die of communicable disease first.”
1. “Who published this?”
Others:
436. “Wow, man. Like, the totally fascist government, like, blows up A-bombs, like, all the time, man.”
6845. “This is an invaluable resource for my students.”
87321. “I have no clue what it means, but this is very lucid and scientific sounding”
Praise for [book]:
- “Wow…”
- “This is an invaluable resource for my students.”
- “…[T]his is very lucid and scientific…”
- “Thanks for the book, it makes excellent [reading]…”
- “This guy…know[s] the difference between correlation and causation.”
- “This study should be titled ‘How to Write a…Study’ or…’How to [Use] Statistics.’ It is absolutely masterful.”
This page was written by Stewart Peterson on May 21, 2009
