4 ms·
Flawed article that ironically reproduces fallacies like those it attempts to point out. "The Which? report found, with the help of several neuroscientists, th
by gregcohn 14y ago
Flawed article that ironically reproduces fallacies like those it attempts to point out.
"The Which? report found, with the help of several neuroscientists, that there was no peer-reviewed evidence to back up any of the manufacturer’s claims that they will improve performance or stave off dementia and other mental illnesses."
Neither the above quote nor the debunking of their internal studies as junk equals any proof to the contrary, that brain training -- or this product for that matter -- doesn't work.
- kumarski 14y agoI agree. I'm hoping people who know more about cognitive science and neuroplasticity will comment on the efficacy of brain training and lumosity.
- logical42 14y agoI was totally going to say the same thing. The lack of evidence for a conclusion is not evidence that the conclusion is false. It just means that the conclusion isn't justified.
- georgemcbay 14y agoDrinking 5 Coca Colas a day cures all cancers. Since you have no studies proving that I'm wrong, then I should be given the benefit of the doubt? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the "Brain Training" crowd can't provide any conclusive and scientific evidence that this stuff does what they either say outright or imply strongly depending upon how "on the record" they are, I don't see why we shouldn't presume that it is all quackery until proven otherwise.
- gregcohn 14y agoSee my reply to lukevdp
- lukevdp 14y agoYou are making the wrong assumption that effect/no effect are equal probability of being true. However, the way science works is that you have to prove an affect. The null hypothesis is that brain training doesn't have any affect on "performance". To assert otherwise, you need evidence. >>Neither the above quote nor the debunking of their internal studies as junk equals any proof to the contrary, that brain training -- or this product for that matter -- doesn't work. The article isn't meant to be proof that it doesn't work. He is saying that there is no good evidence to believe it does.
- gregcohn 14y ago>>The article isn't meant to be proof that it doesn't work. He is saying that there is no good evidence to believe it does. The article title is Why Brain Training Doesn't Work, not There's No Proof Brain Training Works