2 ms·
No no. That's only a 'possible' explanation. In articles such as these you'll find plenty of 'may'-s, 'might'-s, 'can'-s and 'further research'-s. The vaguenes
by halspero 10y ago
No no. That's only a 'possible' explanation. In articles such as these you'll find plenty of 'may'-s, 'might'-s, 'can'-s and 'further research'-s.
The vagueness and intellectual cowardice are exasperating. Don't be afraid to call it out when correlations are two-a-penny and funding is at stake. There are problems crying out for research.
- astrodust 10y agoWelcome to the world of journalism. If you want something stated with absolute certainty when the facts don't support that maybe you want to read propaganda.
- inimino 10y agoI think halspero was trying to make the opposite point, just somewhat poorly expressed.
- halspero 10y agoWell, certainty isn't available whatever the facts! So it's not relevant here. There's no contradiction between fallibilism and asserting that some scientific explanation is true. This study doesn't assert anything apart from an 'association'. Yet progress is made by addressing theoretical problems, not by looking for assocations, which are everywhere. As for 'propaganda' I think you've got it the wrong way around. It's the people who applaud this kind of non-result who are seeking a kind of uncritical 'Yay Science' experience.
- astrodust 10y agoThose people are called the "lay public" and they're capable of believing that caffeine is both good for preventing heart disease and a major cause of heart disease at the same time.
- battlebot 10y agoOr maybe you're just reading fake news.