3 ms·

> 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 anecdota

> 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?

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?