3 ms·
> This is, of course, a relatively common epistemological failure for many individuals - the reduction of science to a binary proof/refutation system where a st
by titzer 6y ago
> This is, of course, a relatively common epistemological failure for many individuals - the reduction of science to a binary proof/refutation system where a study can only transform your priors into a posterior of zero or one, so I guess it's hard to blame you.
Despite the long words in your sentence, this comment amounts to "you foolish binary thinker!"
This study has little predictive power and is hardly distinguishable from noise. It has a poor experimental design and is not a good example of how to do research.
It deserves a complete do-over with a better design and more subjects.
- renewiltord 6y ago> Despite the long words in your sentence, this comment amounts to "you foolish binary thinker!" I chose the words to not direct any criticism towards your person or identity but to a mistake that I also make sometimes. No insult was intended. But, all right, I won't talk about this with you any more.
- titzer 6y agoI appreciate the effort to not directly insult me, but you're still trying to say a pretty snooty thing. You could have just said "Well, Science isn't binary". Which is fine. Instead, you had to go on about how it's so tragic that everyone is wrong about it.
- dbtc 6y agoMaybe it helps prove the case for a bigger and better study?