2 ms·

If a study later comes out showing that they weren't actually addictive, what happens then? What happens if the initial study showing it was addictive was actua

If a study later comes out showing that they weren't actually addictive, what happens then? What happens if the initial study showing it was addictive was actually fraudulent because someone (who might now be dead) just hated Nike?

EdgarVerona 8y ago
Are you saying that we shouldn't act on scientific research based on the possibility that the research will be disproven in the future? Or on the possibility that the research was done in less-than-good-faith? The latter would require the burden of proof, and the former seems pretty untenable/unreasonable. But all that aside, let's talk big picture: does it really matter whether something ends up actually being clinically proven to be addictive if a company is taking action with the intent of making a product more addictive? Let's say, for example, that I put a substance that I believe to be addictive into some new sports drink that I manufacture for the purpose of getting my users "hooked" on the product. What does it say about me, my intent, and the purpose of my product - even if it's discovered at some later date that the substance wasn't actually addictive all along? All of that being said, this issue is a complicated one: the very question of what it means for something to be "entertaining" versus "addictive" is one hell of a deep question, and I think one that we're going to continue to evolve in our understanding of as a species as time goes on... and perhaps it's even something where the line is different for different people, or even the same person when in different moods/circumstances. But I do think that it's both worth it to examine intent when thinking about whether a company is doing something "wrong" or "right," and I don't think it makes sense to dismiss scientific evidence without probable cause for doubt.

2 ms·

If a study later comes out showing that they weren't actually addictive, what happens then? What happens if the initial study showing it was addictive was actua

by FLUX-YOU 8y ago

EdgarVerona 8y ago
Are you saying that we shouldn't act on scientific research based on the possibility that the research will be disproven in the future? Or on the possibility that the research was done in less-than-good-faith? The latter would require the burden of proof, and the former seems pretty untenable/unreasonable. But all that aside, let's talk big picture: does it really matter whether something ends up actually being clinically proven to be addictive if a company is taking action with the intent of making a product more addictive? Let's say, for example, that I put a substance that I believe to be addictive into some new sports drink that I manufacture for the purpose of getting my users "hooked" on the product. What does it say about me, my intent, and the purpose of my product - even if it's discovered at some later date that the substance wasn't actually addictive all along? All of that being said, this issue is a complicated one: the very question of what it means for something to be "entertaining" versus "addictive" is one hell of a deep question, and I think one that we're going to continue to evolve in our understanding of as a species as time goes on... and perhaps it's even something where the line is different for different people, or even the same person when in different moods/circumstances. But I do think that it's both worth it to examine intent when thinking about whether a company is doing something "wrong" or "right," and I don't think it makes sense to dismiss scientific evidence without probable cause for doubt.