slipshod
If I followed your advice on my Stats Class paper, I would be a "nut." Sure, I could ignore my opposition's paper....wow!
I currently have a project that includes collecting non-gaming related data. My data contradict a widely-held theory (no, this time it's not about blackjack). Another researcher (Mr. Hard-Worker) who uses good stat techniques has collected a similar set of data that yield the same conclusions as mine and that also contradict a theory that is widely-held among the unwashed masses. :-D
For my paper, I have decided to cite a source and _read_ a paper from a writer (call him Joe Schmoe) who strongly opposes my own data, even though I believe that the conclusion that Joe Schmoe has drawn is flawed. I think that Joe Schmoe is selling slipshod goods that are strongly contradicted by my data and by Mr. Hard-Worker's data, too.
I will use the numbers that I have found, along with data from Mr. Hard-Worker to question and attempt to invalidate the conclusions of Joe Schmoe.
This is a much stronger technique than to completely ignore the Joe Schmoes in our lives. Yeah, they S*ck. I know.
Unfortunately, we will always have the "unwashed" in our lives, selling their slipshod goods.
We are unfortunately forced to present our data sets and our beautiful small "p" values, like diamonds at Tiffanys, in a showcase, next to the cheap slipshod merchandise and fakes that the Joe Schmoes have for sale. This is unfortunately the nature of the marketplace of ideas.
The discerning public will know the difference between a Rolex Oyster Automatic and a no-name fake imitation whose battery has already run down and whose mechanism is rusted and has already froze up from humidity getting into the case.
~Sr. S.