4 ms·
Seems like a classic "meaningless anecdote" type article. I understand why they are written this way, but it irritates me: "Let's address a common issue which
by zmmmmm 8y ago
Seems like a classic "meaningless anecdote" type article. I understand why they are written this way, but it irritates me: "Let's address a common issue which mysteriously, science has not managed to solve by applying some science!" immediately followed up by "Here's a completely unscientific observation that I will imply you should interpret as some sort of evidence".
I can't help but think that such writing does more harm than good in that it probably convinces a lot of lay people that this is how scientists operate, resulting in them having little to no faith that science itself is a rigorous discipline.
- splittingTimes 8y agoI generally agree with your sentiment. But To be fair, the linked article about the scientific part of the supermom actually takes a very critical look at the scientific studies. Also applying the principle of charity [1], you could think of it this way: the author looked at some studies, did a field trip. Now she tries an experiment at home and reports on it. She does not claim to present any rigorous scientific findings. === [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
- AstralStorm 8y agoAt least someone tried which is more than can be said about many sociology studies. We just need this to also be reproduced in a more rigorous setting and design.