On Oct 16, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Haim <email@example.com> wrote:
> Exaggeration? Oh, no. We accuse them of fraud and they defame us. Exaggeration would be if scores improved 3% and they claim an improvement of 8%. Fraud is when they measure and report their own results, and actively sabotage efforts at independent assessment (you would almost think they have something to hide).
That was kind of my point. In the Milgram/Bishop paper, the words were "grossly exaggerated". You or I would have just said "fraud". If you said that my results were grossly exaggerated I would do one of two things...
1. Prove that they aren't. 2. Concede (with a good reason I hope, like a mistake in my analysis).
Education research is an ugly beast. In scientific research, you are after truth. You start with an hypothesis and the design and purpose of your experiment is to TEST that hypothesis. Whether your hypothesis turns out to be right or wrong, you win. In education research, you start with an hypothesis and the design and purpose of your experiment is to PROVE it.