4 ms·
Right. But it's good to know Nature isn't good anymore. Maybe it never was? I always held it in pretty high regard.
by greentxt 2y ago
Right. 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.