3 ms·
That's funny :) Though when presenting facts and studies, it's also worthwhile to think about how much of the world these studies are accurately able to explai
by prolly97 13d ago
That's funny :)
Though when presenting facts and studies, it's also worthwhile to think about how much of the world these studies are accurately able to explain.
For physics this number is high. "
For social sciences there's good reason to be skeptical.
Even if (big if) a study is directionally replicable, the total proportion of the world, that can be accurately and consistently be explained isn't great.
"Economist X says there's relation R between variables P and Q"
Meanwhile another economist might have found a different result.. or not have published a non-effect. Or have found the effect to be non-existent given confounders.
The danger is when/if people selectively choose studies, that just so happens to repeat what their ideology would dictate.
- dansquizsoft 13d ago> The danger is when/if people selectively choose studies This, in itself, assumes that all studies / papers are equally as good and methodologically sound, which is not a true assumption.
- prolly97 13d agoI agree, if we limit the statement to the quoted piece. But I think the full line is true as it stands. > The danger is when/if people selectively choose studies, that just so happens to repeat what their ideology would dictate. I.e. that the danger doesn't come from being selective based on methodological soundness as you say, but based on e.g. ideology.
- card_zero 12d agoThere's also you can't get an ought from an is, the is–ought problem. The facts don't guide your action at all, not even in an imagined neutral unbiased dispassionate way. They can only change minds as part of an argument, and the argument is going to have ideology behind it.
- josefritzishere 13d agoRe: Alternative Facts. Feelings are not the same as actual facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts