4 ms·

I don't think that's a fair summary... The author provides a more nuanced view than just "there is no effect." You're nitpicking from one section about theory,

by Others 10y ago

I don't think that's a fair summary... The author provides a more nuanced view than just "there is no effect." You're nitpicking from one section about theory, without considering the article as a whole. This is especially egregious considering that the article spends so much time talking about confirmation bias.

jdoliner 10y ago
It even says explicitly: > Do you want to know our conclusions without any regard to how we reached those conclusions? ... If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, then you, like me, have natural human cognitive dysfunctions.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  I don't understand that. Since I can't educate myself on everything required to make an informed decision on whether the paper is true or not, I decide to just trust someone else's opinion. I pick people to trust based on various criteria (how well they've cited their sources, how much other trustworthy people trust them, etc) and then just blindly believe whatever they say. What else can I do?
  - mquander 10y ago
    > how well they've cited their sources, how much other trustworthy people trust them, etc That sounds to me like a "regard to how they reached those conclusions" (maybe a regard to how they reached a subset of their conclusions, and extrapolating to the rest). It's not the most regard you could possibly have, but it's lots.
nkoren 10y ago
This. > ...take the time to notice both the pros and cons of the article, not just the parts you want to be true. Deciphering reality takes time instead of just listening to reflexive beliefs. It requires that one’s mind be open to the possibility you might be right and equally open to the possibility you might be wrong.
Trombone12 10y ago
The highest the actual summary reaches is "But also, despite those inadequacies, the possibility of a new force-producing effect cannot be irrefutably ruled out."
davros 10y ago
Actually, reading the article as a whole, I would say an even stronger conclusion is warranted - almost certainly bad science but we should keep investigating just in case.

by Others 10y ago

jdoliner 10y ago

It even says explicitly: > Do you want to know our conclusions without any regard to how we reached those conclusions? ... If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, then you, like me, have natural human cognitive dysfunctions.

StavrosK 10y ago
I don't understand that. Since I can't educate myself on everything required to make an informed decision on whether the paper is true or not, I decide to just trust someone else's opinion. I pick people to trust based on various criteria (how well they've cited their sources, how much other trustworthy people trust them, etc) and then just blindly believe whatever they say. What else can I do?
- mquander 10y ago
  > how well they've cited their sources, how much other trustworthy people trust them, etc That sounds to me like a "regard to how they reached those conclusions" (maybe a regard to how they reached a subset of their conclusions, and extrapolating to the rest). It's not the most regard you could possibly have, but it's lots.

nkoren 10y ago

This. > ...take the time to notice both the pros and cons of the article, not just the parts you want to be true. Deciphering reality takes time instead of just listening to reflexive beliefs. It requires that one’s mind be open to the possibility you might be right and equally open to the possibility you might be wrong.

Trombone12 10y ago

The highest the actual summary reaches is "But also, despite those inadequacies, the possibility of a new force-producing effect cannot be irrefutably ruled out."

davros 10y ago

Actually, reading the article as a whole, I would say an even stronger conclusion is warranted - almost certainly bad science but we should keep investigating just in case.