4 ms·
It's atrociously bad science. It's not worthwhile to talk about what it means. I appreciated the BBC anecdote as well as the research about the advertisement's
by kevinmchugh 11y ago
It's atrociously bad science. It's not worthwhile to talk about what it means. I appreciated the BBC anecdote as well as the research about the advertisement's phrasing, but trying to interpret it at all is irresponsible pop science wiring.
Briefly: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3025 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3025
- afarrell 11y agoIt is not worthwhile to talk about what it means while framing it as an experiment, but it is still worthwhile to talk about it as a historical incident. We still talk about what other human rights abuses imply about the human condition, no?
- ccvannorman 11y agoOn the contrary, I think Britain especially is sliding into an authoritative, totalitarian nightmare. The parallels between the government workers turning the wheels of oppression against their own citizens and the way the "Guards" acted cannot be ignored.
- Crito 11y agoNone of that makes the study good science.
- fixxer 11y agoExactly. There was nothing valuable derived from this study, except perhaps as a lesson on how not to allocate research funds. Terrible experimental design. Bias everywhere.
- pron 11y agoThe fact something is bad science doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from it. It just means that the conclusions don't have scientific validity, but how many of the conclusions we draw every day do? How many policy decisions can be made that are supported by clear, significant and undisputed scientific results?