Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Call me a cynic but From a cursory look at Stevensons work the data acquisition and what they consider as prior knowledge is suspect for the strength of conclusion they draw so you can call me a cynic but I would argue it’s more of an extraordinary claims require much higher quality of evidence.
|
I think it’s entirely fair to be cynical for that exact reason. The more extraordinary the conclusion is, the more concrete the evidence required.
I understand that it’s fun to think of these things (I think it’s fun at least) and play pretend professor, but I’m always kind of shocked in these conversations when the most engaged and most reliant on appeals to authority (whether fictionalizing their own or dismissing anyone else’s ability to understand what they understand) are almost always the same ones who are also over-reliant on debunked phenomena and outdated, disproven or unreviewed academic studies.
At the end of the day, it’s just not something supported by good science. And it doesn’t take much to understand that. I don’t see any value in holding up a weak study and calling everyone who questions it inadequately educated or conspiracy theorists.
This is the false memory conversation all over again, and while it’s fine for someone with embellished credentials to say “no no, here’s a study, and you’re not qualified to question it,”