4 ms·
You bring up fantastic points. Thank you for your detailed reply. My comment was solely to poke a hole in the idea that only things that can be reproduced in d
by imwillofficial 5y ago
You bring up fantastic points. Thank you for your detailed reply.
My comment was solely to poke a hole in the idea that only things that can be reproduced in double blind studies are truth.
When reality, our modern science is many times far from reality, and getting further each day. (See: reproducibility crisis)
Even “scientific proof” should have a healthy dose of skepticism, and “nothing but anecdotal evidence” should be considered more thoroughly.
The pitfalls of outsourcing critical thinking to double blind studies is the thrust of my point.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago>>to poke a hole in the idea that only things that can be reproduced in double blind studies are truth. I agree, though I will selfishly bring it up to my own point of defining goals/scopes/mandates a priori :) If my partner and I are discussing what's the best colour for the kitchen, double-blinded studies are of limited help and Truth is ephemeral and subjective :). If we are discussing mathematical theorems, double-blinded study may be an irrelevant construct. For some social or psychological areas, double-blinded study may be helpful but difficult or impossible to ethically configure, repeatably conduct, meaningfully interpret, and clean up of confounding variables etc. And for yet other areas, it's the best tool we have to help confirm at a workable, useful, predictive model.