3 ms·
As a science major you should be well acquainted with the dangers of anecdotal evidence. Making claims about cystic fibrosis on the basis of what is "beneficial
by lordlimecat 7y ago
As a science major you should be well acquainted with the dangers of anecdotal evidence. Making claims about cystic fibrosis on the basis of what is "beneficial for you" is bad science. Even with the qualifying your statement, you're implying causalities that you can't possibly justify.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoIt's a discussion in an online forum, not a thesis for a PhD. If you can't engage the actual point with a meaty counterargument instead of a personal cheap shot, then you are the one failing at science, not me. I would be thrilled to absolute pieces if anyone on HN would debate the actual points I sometimes try to make (or otherwise engage me in meaty discourse) instead of being dismissive of me personally. The shallow personal attacks are vacuous and tiresome and in no way help me firm up my understanding of the problem space. Since I study CF because my actual life literally depends upon it, it would be a tremendous boon to my life to get meaty engagement on such topics. But that never, ever happens. Instead, I get what looks an awful lot like Mansplaining and sounds an awful lot like the subtext is "Meh, girls don't know nothing, so I can't be arsed to come up with anything to say about the actual hypothesis proposed. Besides, I'm not actually that knowledgeable."