|12-02-2009, 08:31 AM||#21|
| EricT |
Experience: 7-10 Years
Join Date: Jul 2005
Back to the house of cards. I was just thinking about HST in those terms yesterday.
It's funny how the most "sciency" people come up with re-invented wheel but they don't use real science rules.
The thing about a valid claim is that the PREMISES must not be conjecture, guesses, etc...they must be established "facts". If the premises are not true than the conclusion is in-valid.
I don't know if anybody remembers how I used to say that training didn't come from theories but it comes from solid knowledge and experience of programming. The theories and models come along as a way of explaining the results of training, whether negative or positive.
Many of these programs floating around just don't get that. Looking through pubmed and then deriving some "theory" from which you come up with a new innovative "program" is ludicrous. It won't work.
So, when you look at something like HST where the premises themselves are theories...just how much more backwards can it get?!
Yeah, yeah, it worked for me and that guy....name a internetized program that doesn't "work". They don't exist, in my experience.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|