4 ms·
If it isn’t tested in a systematic, reproducible manner, written down, and peer reviewed, then it hasn’t been proven and doesn’t really contribute to our unders
by mechanical_bear 4y ago
If it isn’t tested in a systematic, reproducible manner, written down, and peer reviewed, then it hasn’t been proven and doesn’t really contribute to our understanding of the world in a meaningful way. This is how science works. Sometimes a seemingly obvious thing isn’t once it undergoes rigorous testing, and sometimes the obvious thing holds up.
- posterboy 4y agoErr, the blind control was literally gathering responses. Anyone can have had such an experience with inverse effects. It could have systematic biases and the peer review may be too benevolent. It is not news, but entertaining, even to the peer reviewers. But isn't science more about problem solving? The problems they must have solved are how do we test this fairly obvious fact? I didn't read the paper and am wondering just what the standard unit for an increase in dance would be.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]