4 ms·
This is a fantastic research paper, better than 90% of the "real" ones. It's natural science in its purest form, grounded in lived experience. 1. Introduce nov
by sdwr 3y ago
This is a fantastic research paper, better than 90% of the "real" ones. It's natural science in its purest form, grounded in lived experience.
1. Introduce novel stimulus
2. Observe response
3. Hypothesize about cause
So much of the statistical significance and p-values and citations is oppressive bureaucracy at best, cargo cult busywork at worst. This is the good stuff.
- andrewflnr 3y agoExcept that the conclusion is dogshit. It's such a wild leap that Superman would wonder if he could follow. There's a reason we use formal stats, and it's because our intuition for these things is not reliable.
- wizzwizz4 3y agoAnd you can see why the conclusion's bad. You can imagine a way to prove the author wrong: a hypothetical observation that you expect, that's inconsistent with their conclusion. Or, as we say in the business, “further work”.
- andrewflnr 3y agoNo, the reason it's bad is that it's 100% non-sequitur. There's no reason to even consider further evidence before dismissing it. Other commenters have pointed out that this is basically a parody article, which is the only way it makes sense. But that means anyone who thinks it represents the pinnacle of science has eaten the onion and needs to reevaluate their criteria for scientific work.