DT>I think someone in this echo once said that it is often difficult to 
DT>isolate factors in any given scientific study (especially educational 
DT>studies).
It may, in fact, be difficult to isolate variables, and
educational studies (or almost ANY sociological study) will
be ESPECIALLY difficult.  The attempt is VERY important if
one wishes to understand the connections between the various
parameters involved.
DT>I am of the opinion that very few, if any, scientific studies 
DT>actually "prove" anything.
Depends on your definition of "prove"... Certainly some of
the conclusions may later prove to be in error (usually
because they were premature, based upon insufficient data, 
or because the process was flawed), or require modification, 
but a scientific study provides a much clearer picture of a 
given event or set of circumstances than any other approach 
one may take.  As a matter of fact, new explanations usually 
flow from anomolies found in old data.
DT>  For the record, I don't think any research data "proves"
DT>  anything.
Research data is not intended to "prove" anything; research
data simply IS; your conclusion(s) are an attempt to
explain the data....
DT>I am willing to accept research data from any "camp"
SK>if it proves to be reliable.  What makes it reliable?
Reliable, in a scientific sense, is synonymous with being
repeatable....
DT>There is a difference between "proves something" and "proves reliable."  
Certainly... Being repeatable doesn't mean we understand
what's going on...
DT>Isn't it true that some scientific research that supposedly "proved" 
DT>something was later found to be incorrect.
More usually you find it requires modification or was a bit
simplified (perhaps we didn't ask a sufficiently detailed
question)....
DT>I believe that the idea of "proving to be reliable information" better 
DT>describes all research including the quantitative kind.
Again, something may be reliable without being understood;
that may be sufficient, but may also entail some risk (It's
always a risk to use something you don't understand)....
DT>I wonder that myself.  I think the same can be said of scientific 
DT>educational research.  Do those studies always hold true?
Newtonian physics seems to have been a simplified version
of Einsteinian physics... We didn't detect the difference
between the two until our questions became sophisticated
enough.  For most purposes, Newtonian physics works just
fine.  It wasn't "wrong"; it was incomplete....
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * WIN95: Start me up,...you can make a grown man cryyyyy!
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2
---------------