5 ms·
>> If a study doesn't pass the smell test, is not easily reproducible, and I have no personally trusted people who can vouch for the findings, then - yes - my f
by jbm 3y ago
>> If a study doesn't pass the smell test, is not easily reproducible, and I have no personally trusted people who can vouch for the findings, then - yes - my feelings matter more.
> Are you fucking stupid? They’re doing just that, but in the opposite direction
I don't think you read what I wrote in any attempt to understand.
The argument is that a person can value their own experiences more than data, and not that their experiences are convincing to other people.
It doesn't bother me that someone feels their anecdotal experience in their social circles is completely different from the data shared. The original data could be slanted, the social circle could be different, and it's an opportunity - not something that needs to be shouted down because of "the data".
Even assuming the data is correct, having a potential population in which it is different would be of far greater interest than flexing about the supposed absolute truth of the data.
- ryandrake 3y agoYes, studies and data could be wrong. But they should be countered with “better studies and data” not with smell checks and gut feelings.
- jbm 3y agoI get that gut checks and feelings are what climate denialists use, and I'm aware of the inaccuracy involved. Still, it's literally all you have, unless you are going to create that "Journal of Uninteresting Results / Journal of Failed Experiments" and have it become the basis for people to keep their jobs in University. If you want to be an open pipe to "data", that's your prerogative.
- Izkata 3y agoThis entire comment chain is like people arguing on behalf of the government of Nineteen Eighty-Four: Don't trust your eyes and ears, they lie, trust only what we tell you.