3 ms·
As I mentioned in my other comment in this thread, the linked article goes in the step in the right direction by having hypotheses at all. That's why this artic
by smichel17 6y ago
As I mentioned in my other comment in this thread, the linked article goes in the step in the right direction by having hypotheses at all. That's why this article remains so influential despite its hypothesis (flax oil makes for better seasoning) having been disproved.
If someone wants to dethrone this article, they need to do it with more/better science to support an alternative hypothesis (e.g. a recommendation for a different oil). Without this, it is impossible to establish the credibility of different recommendations.
- vikramkr 6y agoIt then takes a step in the wrong direction by presenting the hypothesis as a scientific conclusion. Everyone has a hypothesis. Having a hypothesis doesn't make it special or science based. Every anecdote driven article is presenting a hypothesis, and an awful lot of them Couch their anecdotes in potential scientific explanations to sound more credible. Theres not a need to do "more" science - there's a need to do basically any science. I'll grant that the societal context means that someone has to do more work and then present their findings in an equally engaging way (with the necessary anecdotes etc), but science based?