2 ms·

P(tool developed w/ science is effective) > P(tool developed w/o science is effective) Agreed, but there was no claim to science, at least from the description

P(tool developed w/ science is effective) > P(tool developed w/o science is effective) Agreed, but there was no claim to science, at least from the description. To me the original article seemed to air an opinion. Asking 'where's the science?' is akin to asking for proof, which makes no sense when we're discussing opinions. To me, "it's unproven" is just unfavorable opinion without articulating reasons. So I don't think it should get a vote in edw's comment :) (upvoted you, btw. You were at -1. Downvoting such a high-quality comment is a classic example of voting by agreement. I think I'm going to start a site highlighting the stupidest votes on HN everyday..)

natep 16y ago
> You were at -1 Thanks. This isn't the first time I've made a thoughtful reply to a "science isn't important" comment. The last time, my comment didn't get as many upvotes as its parent, so I'm not too surprised that my comment wasn't received well this time, either. To you, "it's unproven" is not a valid reason for rejecting this book. But it is a valid reason for many other people, especially since it takes a great deal of commitment to use this (unproven) tool. Full disclosure, I just bought the book :) Would still really like to see it proven effective by science, but am not putting the burden of proof on anyone in particular (original author is dead) nor holding my breath.
- akkartik 16y ago
  "Would still really like to see it proven effective by science.." Absolutely. Proven or disproven, or more likely a more nuanced picture will emerge of when repetition works. I think of science as this wavefront that lags the frontiers of what we work on. But it'll get here eventually.