4 ms·
First, OP's author went through the trouble of citing a bunch of third-party sources. Second, confirmation bias or your beliefs don't go away just because you d
by spindritf 13y ago
First, OP's author went through the trouble of citing a bunch of third-party sources. Second, confirmation bias or your beliefs don't go away just because you didn't state them.
Not only that, but it's entirely proper, even desired, to state your hypothesis before testing it. Scientists are fighting for it right now, some are proposing a registry of hypotheses to be tested to fight another problem -- publication bias.
- ronaldx 13y agoIt's easy to "go through the trouble" of picking the matching third-party sources and rejecting non-matching third-party sources. If you are an association trying to present one viewpoint (as this is), that's pretty much your first job. The article here touts the word "random", which is essential to the science of the claim - but despite being claimed repeatedly, it remains totally unexamined. There is bias and there is bias - this article makes no attempt to clear any source of bias, and as such is about as biased as you can get.