5 ms·

err well- anecdotal evidence may be a good basis for a theory that could be validated using an experiment, but it does not suffice to be calling somebody elses'

err well- anecdotal evidence may be a good basis for a theory that could be validated using an experiment, but it does not suffice to be calling somebody elses' argument ridiculous...

IncRnd 4y ago
My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal. It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark. That should be obvious.
- BossingAround 4y ago
  > My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal. It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evidence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evide...
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    > It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. You are simply repeating something enough that you believe it to be true. You are misinformed about the meaning of the word anecdotal [1] and appear to be playing word games between "anecdotal", "anecdotal evidence", and a misunderstanding of what I wrote. > It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. What is the "it" in your comment? An experiment that someone performs is not anecdotal. [2] [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      Your own link starts with "Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation." Even if you actually performed some experiment on yourself, unless you had some outside method of calculating eye strain it would still be anecdotal evidence.
  - jaharios 4y ago
    Do you put your hand over fire or you need a study to confirm that fire will burn you?
    - BeetleB 4y ago
      That a hand over fire will burn you is not a subject of dispute. Everyone who attempts it knows it. That dark mode is better for the eyes very much is a subject of dispute, and many have tried it and disagree it is better. Do you see a difference?
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark. What part of "It's just a preference thing" are you disputing?
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    > What part of "It's just a preference thing" are you disputing? That wasn't part of my comment, which I why I didn't quote that. > I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it. You were not saying "it's just a preference thing" there.
- kriro 4y ago
  The problem with this approach is that it is biased towards short term effects at the cost of long term effects and when you realize this it's too late already. "Feels better" is obviously a very good heuristic and usually what's good short term is probably more likely to be good than bad long term and millions of people rely on this heuristic but it's good to be aware of the shortcomings of this approach.
  - laserlight 4y ago
    Came here to say the same. A good example is low-quality sunglasses that don't block UV light. Pupils dilate when wearing sunglasses, because there's less light coming in. Dilated pupils let more UV light in compared to naked eye vision. Subjective experience might be relief, yet it's at the cost of long-term retinal health.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That's exactly what anecdotal means: one person's account of something. What did you think it meant?

err well- anecdotal evidence may be a good basis for a theory that could be validated using an experiment, but it does not suffice to be calling somebody elses' argument ridiculous...

IncRnd 4y ago

My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal. It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark. That should be obvious.

BossingAround 4y ago
> My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal. It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evidence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evide...
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. You are simply repeating something enough that you believe it to be true. You are misinformed about the meaning of the word anecdotal [1] and appear to be playing word games between "anecdotal", "anecdotal evidence", and a misunderstanding of what I wrote. > It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. What is the "it" in your comment? An experiment that someone performs is not anecdotal. [2] [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Your own link starts with "Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation." Even if you actually performed some experiment on yourself, unless you had some outside method of calculating eye strain it would still be anecdotal evidence.
- jaharios 4y ago
  Do you put your hand over fire or you need a study to confirm that fire will burn you?
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    That a hand over fire will burn you is not a subject of dispute. Everyone who attempts it knows it. That dark mode is better for the eyes very much is a subject of dispute, and many have tried it and disagree it is better. Do you see a difference?
BeetleB 4y ago
> It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark. What part of "It's just a preference thing" are you disputing?
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > What part of "It's just a preference thing" are you disputing? That wasn't part of my comment, which I why I didn't quote that. > I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it. You were not saying "it's just a preference thing" there.
kriro 4y ago
The problem with this approach is that it is biased towards short term effects at the cost of long term effects and when you realize this it's too late already. "Feels better" is obviously a very good heuristic and usually what's good short term is probably more likely to be good than bad long term and millions of people rely on this heuristic but it's good to be aware of the shortcomings of this approach.
- laserlight 4y ago
  Came here to say the same. A good example is low-quality sunglasses that don't block UV light. Pupils dilate when wearing sunglasses, because there's less light coming in. Dilated pupils let more UV light in compared to naked eye vision. Subjective experience might be relief, yet it's at the cost of long-term retinal health.
lelanthran 4y ago
> My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That's exactly what anecdotal means: one person's account of something. What did you think it meant?