4 ms·
So, let me get this straight: founding a group 49 years ago means that "he's very clearly biased toward proving minimum wage increase's success". This seems li
by elgenie 9y ago
So, let me get this straight: founding a group 49 years ago means that "he's very clearly biased toward proving minimum wage increase's success".
This seems like a lack of familiarity with the scientific method. First, there's a hypothesis about the world. Then, that hypothesis is tested against evidence. The origins of a seasoned researcher's hypotheses about the world and their ideas of what they would like the world to be are not enough to impugn their ability to evaluate others' study design or the integrity of their own hypothesis-testing.
At best, you've provided evidence for "he may be ideologically more pleased with hypotheses supporting the success of minimum wage increases being successfully supported by evidence".
- jff 9y ago> This seems like a lack of familiarity with the scientific method. First, there's a hypothesis about the world. Then, that hypothesis is tested against evidence. The origins of a seasoned researcher's hypotheses about the world and motivations they would like the world are not enough to impugn the integrity of their own hypothesis-testing or their ability to evaluate others' study design. And yet the author of the article seems happy to impugn the motivations of the UW researchers, because his ideology does not agree with their results.
- elgenie 9y agoI don't see where the Perspectives contributor is using the UW researchers' motivations as the main thrust of his (not particularly great) arguments -- he seems to be interested in comparing study design at the very least. And even if he was, it doesn't excuse alacombe.