3 ms·

They get down-voted because they're worse than useless.

by kgwxd 3y ago

brink 3y ago
[flagged]
- belltaco 3y ago
  I don't think an anecdote against an average makes sense. For example, lets say a study finds Tylenol reduces fevers, an anecdote of 'it never did for me or my friends and family' is somewhat of a relevant anectode because that would be very unlikely if the study was true. Now lets say a study finds 'the average height in 5th grade is 5ft 4in'. And someone responds 'I am in 5th grade and I am only 5ft, the study is a screed and maliciously motivated'. That isn't a relevant anecdote because of how averages work. Just like your anecdote here.
- ye-olde-sysrq 3y ago
  So because some studies don't replicate or are corrupt, they all are, and we should rely blindly on gut instinct? The whole point is that science isn't a religion. Science is just forming a hypothesis, testing it, and then analyzing your results (often mathematically) to determine whether your hypothesis was supported, rejected, or if the results were inconclusive. It's a best-effort thing using the tools and methods available. It's not infallible, but it doesn't ever ask you to "believe" anything. >blindly trust the study No, nobody here has ever told you to blindly trust anything, I can assure you. You can always look at the study yourself and look to identify why you might not agree with their conclusions, and that's how peer review works! You can review their evidence, and analyze their logic for how they drew conclusions based on the evidence, and if you find a flaw in their reasoning or how they collected their data, then you're free to criticize it and hopefully whoever carries on that research will repeat the experiment but take your feedback into account.
- Swenrekcah 3y ago
  Ok there’s some confusion here. Some studies being wrong does not make all of them wrong. It certainly doesn’t give anecdotes any special credibility. Furthermore the well established body of knowledge about of human induced climate change is made up of countless studies, predictions, observations and general scientific and engineering knowledge going back almost 200 years. To reject or throw that into doubt because there are a handful of swindlers in science just as in any other human endeavour is like saying all modern medical equipment is probably a fraud because of Theranos.

They get down-voted because they're worse than useless.

by kgwxd 3y ago

They get down-voted because they're worse than useless.

brink 3y ago

[flagged]

belltaco 3y ago
I don't think an anecdote against an average makes sense. For example, lets say a study finds Tylenol reduces fevers, an anecdote of 'it never did for me or my friends and family' is somewhat of a relevant anectode because that would be very unlikely if the study was true. Now lets say a study finds 'the average height in 5th grade is 5ft 4in'. And someone responds 'I am in 5th grade and I am only 5ft, the study is a screed and maliciously motivated'. That isn't a relevant anecdote because of how averages work. Just like your anecdote here.
ye-olde-sysrq 3y ago
So because some studies don't replicate or are corrupt, they all are, and we should rely blindly on gut instinct? The whole point is that science isn't a religion. Science is just forming a hypothesis, testing it, and then analyzing your results (often mathematically) to determine whether your hypothesis was supported, rejected, or if the results were inconclusive. It's a best-effort thing using the tools and methods available. It's not infallible, but it doesn't ever ask you to "believe" anything. >blindly trust the study No, nobody here has ever told you to blindly trust anything, I can assure you. You can always look at the study yourself and look to identify why you might not agree with their conclusions, and that's how peer review works! You can review their evidence, and analyze their logic for how they drew conclusions based on the evidence, and if you find a flaw in their reasoning or how they collected their data, then you're free to criticize it and hopefully whoever carries on that research will repeat the experiment but take your feedback into account.
Swenrekcah 3y ago
Ok there’s some confusion here. Some studies being wrong does not make all of them wrong. It certainly doesn’t give anecdotes any special credibility. Furthermore the well established body of knowledge about of human induced climate change is made up of countless studies, predictions, observations and general scientific and engineering knowledge going back almost 200 years. To reject or throw that into doubt because there are a handful of swindlers in science just as in any other human endeavour is like saying all modern medical equipment is probably a fraud because of Theranos.