Hydrogen Alpha region in Cygnus

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 12:28:01 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:18:38 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Just because you don't want to believe the result?

Do you also deny that colour blindness is sex linked and that the odds
of being colour blind are worse for men XY at 1 in 12. Whereas women XX
get two bites at the cherry for having good colour vision at 1 in 20.

Because of the way that the genes for our cone pigments are carried on
allosomes, we see other sex-linked visual phenomena as well.
Tetrachromacy is far more common in women, and at least some
tetrachromats show better color discrimination (and wider gamuts) than
normal trichromats.

It would be surprising _not_ to find differences in color vision
between men and women.

You are responding to brown's irrelevantt comments, peterson.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:02:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Just because you don't want to believe the result?

Clearly a better study, having adequate controls, would be needed to make what, in any case, would be a trivial result.

Do you have a link to the paper? All I can find is a conference
abstract which doesn't have enough information to assess the quality
of controls or of the experimental design in general, and doesn't
provide the actual statistical analysis. You apparently have access to
the full published results. Link appreciated.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:03:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You are responding to brown's irrelevantt comments, peterson.

I am responding to Brown.

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 1:09:48 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:02:05 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Just because you don't want to believe the result?

Clearly a better study, having adequate controls, would be needed to make what, in any case, would be a trivial result.

Do you have a link to the paper? All I can find is a conference
abstract which doesn't have enough information to assess the quality
of controls or of the experimental design in general, and doesn't
provide the actual statistical analysis. You apparently have access to
the full published results. Link appreciated.

The methodology was clearly based on subjective decisions by the test subjects. Women are more often "into" colors and shades of colors, than are men, a fact having nothing to do with their respective color discrimination capacities, which even that flawed study showed to be trivial in difference, if really even different at all. No more info is needed.

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:03:20 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You are responding to brown's irrelevantt comments, peterson.

I am responding to Brown.

Yes, but brown is a twit, as are you. Take your discussion with him to Email.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:12:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The methodology was clearly based on subjective decisions by the test subjects. Women are more often "into" colors and shades of colors, than are men, a fact having nothing to do with their respective color discrimination capacities, which even that flawed study showed to be trivial in difference, if really even different at all. No more info is needed.

And thus you demonstrate that you are not a scientist.

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:12:06 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

The methodology was clearly based on subjective decisions by the test subjects. Women are more often "into" colors and shades of colors, than are men, a fact having nothing to do with their respective color discrimination capacities, which even that flawed study showed to be trivial in difference, if really even different at all. No more info is needed.

And thus you demonstrate that you are not a scientist.

No, you have just demonstrated your profound ignorance of science. There is no room for subjectivity and in that study there was nothing BUT subjectivity.