5 ms·
What's cool about the article's take, though, is that it's based on an actual usability study and not just something someone said.
by mumblemumble 3y ago
What's cool about the article's take, though, is that it's based on an actual usability study and not just something someone said.
- lagt_t 3y agoWhere's the peer review?
- mumblemumble 3y agoLet's not set up a double standard here. It's not like non-evidence-based opinions are subject to peer review.
- lagt_t 3y agoI'm just applying the same standard here, a non peer reviewed study has the same value as the opinion of a web designer.
- _Algernon_ 3y agoA study needs peer review, but some web designer's opinion is just to be accepted as gospel?
- lagt_t 3y agoNope, both are to be taken with a grain of salt.
- xboxnolifes 3y agoWhen you use appeal to credibility "this is a real study and not just an opinion", yes, you need a peer review. Especially with how poor the quality of much unreviewed research is. Nobody suggested taking the opinion as gospel.
- mumblemumble 3y ago"Appeal to credibility"? Are we just making up fallacies based on a formula now? Yes, given two alternatives, one should prefer the one that is more credible in light of the available information. That certainly doesn't mean that the more credible of the two is incontrovertible, but it does take more than armchair skepticism to controvert it. Skepticism is about paying attention to all of the evidence that has been presented. Coming up with cute phrases to justify offhandedly dismissing information that you don't like falls more into the realm of pseudoskepticism.
- xboxnolifes 3y agoEvery string of words isn't just naming a fallacy. Sometimes words just make sentences. The person was appealing to the credibility associated with a "real study", so that's what I said.
- _Algernon_ 3y agoI'm gonna assume you mean appeal to authority. As someone who has had a leg inside academia, it is shocking how frequently peer review lets absolutely methodologically horrifying studies through the cracks. Peer review is little more than a rubber stamp that enables others to be less skeptical of the contents. The true stamp of proof in science was always intended to be replicability, but that is extremely rare to find.