3 ms·
The report is at least citing some statistics, whereas the counter-argument seems to be using intuitition that it "doesn't seem right". That's hardly a debunkin
by blowski 5y ago
The report is at least citing some statistics, whereas the counter-argument seems to be using intuitition that it "doesn't seem right". That's hardly a debunking.
- ivanbakel 5y agoBut the point is that just "citing some statistics" isn't an argument. Justifying an extreme claim requires extreme proof. Drawing conclusions from data requires human input, and human input can include "this is clearly false".
- blowski 5y agoDoesn't seem like an extreme claim to me, and thus we find ourselves both using our own pre-conceived ideas to "confirm" what we already knew. I would say that it certainly highlights the need for more evidence, but it's not proof to the contrary.
- ivanbakel 5y ago>Doesn't seem like an extreme claim to me The Nautilus article gives many examples of effects which would have a similar statistical significance to the one presented in the OP. Which ones do you think are equivalently significant in reality to the effect of meal times on judicial sentencing?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]