5 ms·

Can I interest you in some homeopathic remedies or a bottle of snake oil? Maybe prayer? History is full of people who thought/think their bias and anecdotal evi

by inexcf 4y ago

Can I interest you in some homeopathic remedies or a bottle of snake oil? Maybe prayer? History is full of people who thought/think their bias and anecdotal evidence is good enough.

theclansman 4y ago
Just trust the science bro
- Koshkin 4y ago
  “Science” is such an empty word, though. “Knowledge” and “research” are more concrete, and you can always ask whether knowledge is reliable and where its limit lie, and whether research is trustworthy.
tobr 4y ago
Those are some very poor comparisons. Maybe if someone is claiming that dark mode or light mode have long-term effects on your health, but what people are actually claiming is just that they find one or the other more comfortable. There’s no meaningful scientific “truth” to that beyond a person’s own stated preference, just like there’s no scientifically most comfortable pair of pants or best color of wall paint. For what it’s worth, my preference of pants is definitely biased and based on anecdotal evidence. I have a pair of legs to test it with myself.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > Those are some very poor comparisons. Not at all. I know people who tried homeopathic medicine and felt better afterwards, and swear by it. It is very much analogous.
- throw10920 4y ago
  These comparisons are entirely correct and accurate. The linked article is about objective measures of eye strain and health. Unless someone explicitly says otherwise, it's very reasonable to assume that they're also discussing those objective measures instead of subjective perception. If not - they're completely off-topic and they shouldn't be commenting here. In particular, the comment earlier in this thread "I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes." doesn't say "my subjective perception of eye-strain", so we can assume that they're referring to the objective measurements, as is the actual topic for the thread.
cedilla 4y ago
I think this illustrates well how we have to be careful with our arguments around quack medicine. The problem with "works for me" is not that that argument is invalid in and of itself. The problem is that homeopaths don't actually know that it works for them. What healed your infection and what did and didn't help is almost impossible to know. Dark mode is very different. "do I have eyestrain after 4 hours of work" is easy to answer, and dark mode can be toggled with a single click to see how it affects you.

by inexcf 4y ago

Can I interest you in some homeopathic remedies or a bottle of snake oil? Maybe prayer? History is full of people who thought/think their bias and anecdotal evidence is good enough.

theclansman 4y ago

Just trust the science bro

Koshkin 4y ago
“Science” is such an empty word, though. “Knowledge” and “research” are more concrete, and you can always ask whether knowledge is reliable and where its limit lie, and whether research is trustworthy.

tobr 4y ago

Those are some very poor comparisons. Maybe if someone is claiming that dark mode or light mode have long-term effects on your health, but what people are actually claiming is just that they find one or the other more comfortable. There’s no meaningful scientific “truth” to that beyond a person’s own stated preference, just like there’s no scientifically most comfortable pair of pants or best color of wall paint. For what it’s worth, my preference of pants is definitely biased and based on anecdotal evidence. I have a pair of legs to test it with myself.

BeetleB 4y ago
> Those are some very poor comparisons. Not at all. I know people who tried homeopathic medicine and felt better afterwards, and swear by it. It is very much analogous.
throw10920 4y ago
These comparisons are entirely correct and accurate. The linked article is about objective measures of eye strain and health. Unless someone explicitly says otherwise, it's very reasonable to assume that they're also discussing those objective measures instead of subjective perception. If not - they're completely off-topic and they shouldn't be commenting here. In particular, the comment earlier in this thread "I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes." doesn't say "my subjective perception of eye-strain", so we can assume that they're referring to the objective measurements, as is the actual topic for the thread.

cedilla 4y ago

I think this illustrates well how we have to be careful with our arguments around quack medicine. The problem with "works for me" is not that that argument is invalid in and of itself. The problem is that homeopaths don't actually know that it works for them. What healed your infection and what did and didn't help is almost impossible to know. Dark mode is very different. "do I have eyestrain after 4 hours of work" is easy to answer, and dark mode can be toggled with a single click to see how it affects you.