3 ms·
one would assume they controlled for this. Its a scientific study. But then I've just finished reading the thread about scientific misconduct.... Not sure what
by mpfundstein 6y ago
one would assume they controlled for this. Its a scientific study.
But then I've just finished reading the thread about scientific misconduct.... Not sure what to trust anymore
- rorykoehler 6y agoKnowing Australian politics this is more likely a PR exercise.
- Arech 6y agoThese's not a word in abstract of the study [0] that they have controlled for anything. (and I don't say that assuming anything about a study is a bad scientific practice, but I do assume it) [0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.13239 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.13239
- deathlight 6y ago>one would assume they controlled for this. Its a scientific study. My priors have shifted in the opposite direction over time. When I hear studies like this I'm tempted to assume mediocrity in both the collection and analysis of the data that puts the results into questionable utility for me. And not just mediocrity but potential bad faith tricks like p-hacking and its cousins. It would take a substantial effort from high quality scientists (meaning individual reputation) including replication studies to get me interested.
- mpfundstein 6y agounfortunately I totally agree. I feel the same and its a shame.