4 ms·
yeah. This is the “I hate social media” equivalent of the daily mail’s pop science coverage. Most of it’s wrong, and the parts that aren’t are totally uninforma
by grapist420 5y ago
yeah. This is the “I hate social media” equivalent of the daily mail’s pop science coverage. Most of it’s wrong, and the parts that aren’t are totally uninformative.
- Jolter 5y agoIt’s not wrong, it’s all based on scientific evidence. That’s kind of the point of the list. You got a big list of arguments for one viewpoint. You might want to point to evidence of your opposing view instead of dismissing the science without addressing any of its claims.
- zepto 5y agoIt takes more than a single study for something to become ‘science’. Especially in the social sciences, where replication is a real problem. I’m strongly in agreement with the goal and the sentiment of the project, but not with its execution. We need a lot more epistemic humility and contextualization for this to not just seem like just another political project.
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoYeah, if they'd read and critiqued at least some of the papers, we would all be more informed rather than outraged.
- zepto 5y agoRight, and compared the stats with other harms etc.