To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to say what the experiment died of.
Inquiry is fatal to certainty.
I don't think that somebody who is observing or predicting behavior should also be participating in the 'experiment.'
Science is a cemetery of dead ideas.
Sometimes you can fail in an experiment. But if you fail, you still don't stop observing that thing, looking for a better way.
Scientific inquiry starts with observation. The more one can see, the more one can investigate.
Research challenges the materialistic understanding of death, according to which biological death represents the final end of existence and of all conscious activity.
There is survival behavior, and doctors need to learn from patients who do not die when they are supposed to, instead of saying, 'You're doing very well, so keep doing whatever you are doing.' They should be asking what their patient is doing and pass the information to other patients.
I'm not being evasive but I am saying I'm not a scientist and I'm not directly involved in the consultation however the science must be sound, it must be agreed and the consultation must be of a high quality or no one will have any confidence in the process.
Normally, you should be dead if you have a retrospective.