not sure if i am following you here
but the only way we find an obligation in *this* study to have blown out its scope to hell and gone by digging into random additional hypotheses is by starting from a point of high moral dudgeon about what hypothesis it was actually designed for
-
-
no, i'm not making a moralistic statement here. measuring only attractiveness is bullshit because any scientist certainly know that there's no plausible link between that and the disease. the effect is certainly being mediated by something else (genes, behaviour etc.)
-
right, except tons of science does nothing more than document a correlation or an absence of one so that further studies can build on it, and we only find an obligation for this one to have dug until it found a causality hypothesis out of being pissed at it for bullshit reasons
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.