Main Page Contact Register Log In

Have you actually seen a study like that which made sense to you?

I haven't actually looked at any studies on the matter. I just really don't trust correlation. I suppose this is the part in the argument where I'm supposed to not be lazy and actually hunt down studies to this effect.

But a non-random selection from a limited set is still better than purely theoretical speculations.

I disagree. If theory went one way and correlation went the other, I'd trust the theory. If I seriously looked for confounding variables and couldn't find any, then I'd start considering the study, but I don't think this is the case here.

I agree that correlation is not proof, but I would also be wary about trusting any theory that does not have supporting empirical evidence. In principle, it may be possible to arrive at the right answer by logical reasoning alone, but in practice this almost never happens. With may be one exception I donít recall any correct scientific theories that were based on pure logical reasoning, rather than on the experimental results pointing out errors in the previous theory. In politics, where our emotional biases are far stronger, pure logic is even less reliable.
Replies (1)