One from an earlier time before electronic displays:

If the meter doesn’t show the value you expect, tap it until it does. Otherwise, just record the reading.

A study attacking some of the most prominent research in the burgeoning field of social neuroscience is flawed and unfair, according to top scientists who have been accused of overselling their results.

…

a no-holds-barred paper, accepted for publication in Perspectives on Psychological Science and already circulating widely on the Internet, claims that many studies in the field are worthless because brain imaging data have been poorly analysed.

…

Vul and his co-authors say they wrote the paper because they were concerned by what they considered to be the “implausibly high correlations” reported between brain activation and particular forms of behaviour, and the lack of methodological details provided. So they selected 54 papers in social neuroscience and sent a brief questionnaire to the authors requesting details of their analyses.

They concluded that in a ‘red list’ of 31 cases — often in high-profile journals, including Nature and Science — the authors made fundamental errors in data handling and statistics.

…

The swift rebuttal was prompted by scientists’ alarm at the speed with which the accusations have spread through the community. The provocative title — ‘Voodoo correlations in social neuroscience’ — and iconoclastic tone have attracted coverage on many blogs, including that of Newsweek. Those attacked say they have not had the chance to argue their case in the normal academic channels.

…

“On the other hand, we all agree that there is a kernel of truth in what Vul and his colleagues write about some of the literature being shaky,” adds Christian Keysers of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, whose 2007 paper in NeuroImage on empathy was highlighted. “We can never be reminded often enough of the importance of good statistical practice.”

Rules of the lab
1) If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
2) When you don’t know what you’re doing, do it neatly.
3) Experiments must be reproduceable, they should fail the same way each time.
4) First draw your curves, then plot your data.
5) Experience is directly proportional to equipment ruined.
6) Always keep a record of your data. It indicates that you have been working.
7) To do a lab really well, have your report done well in advance.
8) If you can’t get the answer in the usual manner, start at the answer and derive the question.
9) In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
10) Do not believe in miracles–rely on them.
11) Team work is essential, it allows you to blame someone else.
12) All unmarked beakers contain fast-acting, extremely toxic poisons.
13) No experiment is a complete failure. At least it can serve as a negative example.
14) Any delicate and expensive piece of glassware will break before any use can be made of it.

No offense taken.

Yes, I read your post #81 in the manner you have explained and have no difficulty with it. I hope you will forgive me for borrowing the quote from it – I did not seek to misrepresent your views, merely to comment on the quote.

In 1980s slang, “fly” means super cool. I’m not sure what adding “gad” does to this slang…

Yes, like “those parachute pants are totally fly, man!”

Mark

Research is defined as human activity based on intellectual application in the investigation of matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research