3 ms·
We could and you are free to run such experiment. While I think the experiment is likely dumb, criticizing authors for not mixing science with charity is not p
by hbrn 4y ago
We could and you are free to run such experiment.
While I think the experiment is likely dumb, criticizing authors for not mixing science with charity is not productive.
For experiment like that it's already virtually impossible to produce valuable results. If you throw charity in the mix you're going to get less science. If one goal is already too hard, why would you make two goals? Unless you already believe there's no science here.
- fargle 4y agoYes. I think it's pretty obvious: a) it's not any kind of science in the first place b) it is in fact charity and c) it's poorly and unfairly directed charity I'm not critiquing the authors. I'm critiquing the dumb social program. The article said it was a "pilot" program and talks about unlocking their full potential. I'd certainly hope that was the point to just about any charitable program - so why pick this demographic over that one?