3 ms·
Looking at comments: "Kind of a way of turning something obvious on its head and painting it as a negative." "This research smells so bad. It does not read as
by incomingpain 2y ago
Looking at comments:
"Kind of a way of turning something obvious on its head and painting it as a negative."
"This research smells so bad. It does not read as professional science at all."
"The term "Conspiracy Theory" itself needs more scrutiny, IMO."
"The question I ask with these studies is "what is a conspiracy?", because there is a big difference between people who think the world is flat and people who think there is something fishy about, say, the Jeff Epstein saga. "
Yep, all 4 i agree with. They all have similar foundations of complaint. That the quality of this study is nowhere near good. Therefore flaggable.
This isn't really a scientific study, it's a political statement. They went in looking for a conclusion and fit their data to it.
- greentxt 2y agoRight. But it's good to know Nature isn't good anymore. Maybe it never was? I always held it in pretty high regard.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- greentxt 2y agoI got downvoted but I'd point out two things: the featured "study" is psychology, it would never pass muster in one of the flagship psychology journals-- and that says a lot! Maybe it's correct in its conclusions. Who knows. The "method" in "scientific method" does all the work. Otherwise all you get are "claims" which some may agree and others disagree with. You can't just make assertions without proof, without operational definitions, etc...
- mistermann 2y ago> The "method" in "scientific method" does all the work. Not technically it doesn't: the method is a guideline, it is implemented by Humans, and even science has done extensive investigation into how unreliable Humans are.