3 ms·
Isn't it more likely that these scientists do actually know what they are doing, and aren't actually the incompetent bumbling fools you seem to think? I'm baff
by matthewmacleod 10y ago
Isn't it more likely that these scientists do actually know what they are doing, and aren't actually the incompetent bumbling fools you seem to think?
I'm baffled that there is always a response to any scientific research along the lines of "Well, these scientists didn't take <obvious confounding factor> into account! They need to compensate for <list of random attributes I just thought up>."
- rimantas 10y agoIt's psychology I would not place high bets on scientists actually knowing what they are doing.
- throwanem 10y agoQuite aside from the fact that appeal to authority is not how science is supposed to work, the current reproducibility crisis suggests that this sort of response need not be as baffling as you seem to find it. To be clear, I doubt GP has accurately identified a confounder here; the comparison is between children diagnosed with depression and those not so diagnosed, performing the same task, so it's not as though differential response on the task is being used to identify depression. But the larger point that a result need not be taken on faith remains valid, as does the general advisability of knowing what you're talking about before you do so - which GP regrettably seems here to have overlooked.