3 ms·
That seems a rather pointless way to think about it, unless you think any science that can't be proven with a brief conversation with someone isn't worth consid
by swores 4y ago
That seems a rather pointless way to think about it, unless you think any science that can't be proven with a brief conversation with someone isn't worth considering. Would you try to judge how many kids in the class have inherited higher risk of heart disease by listening to their heart beats for a few minutes?
If you spent a day with a class of kids you'd probably (unless asking them specific questions about it) not be able to guess any specifics of their parents' different parenting techniques, does that mean that parenting doesn't matter and kids should just be ignored when not being fed?
- j7ake 4y agoOne can definitely figure out which kids were coming from troubled homes. Teachers often notice outlier behaviours and report them to higher ups to get help for these children. The effect of having loving parents completely dominates whether you breastfeed or bottle or formula.
- swores 4y agoAnd seeing if a child has recently been punched in the face is even easier, why draw the line at what's simple to see and dismiss anything that isn't?
- j7ake 4y agoTwo reasons : 1) Because large effects are more robust than tiny effects to things like researcher bias, choice of statistical methods, and experimental error. 2) because perturbing large effects are more likely to see real world difference for every day life than small effects. The conclusion from studies of breastfeeding versus bottle is it does not matter because it is a tiny and likely negligible effect (even if the effect is highly statistically significant).