Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesla
Honestly.... now this may be oversimplifying..... you could ask 1000 people "What kind of fruit do you like better, Apples or Oranges ?"
You could measure brain activity and come up with statistically-significant proof that those that eat Apples are smarter.
See... those that eat apples can change this habits... therefore they are smarter.
|
Well now you are debating correlation vs causation.
Maybe there are flaws in the study, but I'm not prepared to sit down and go through it to find out.
Perhaps there is a bias, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the results. It can make you wonder if the results published were cherry picked.
But is the sample size large enough to get meaningful results, are the results statistically significant, was the sample representative, ... a whole myriad of things.
But even if this study is correct, really, what difference does it make?
It isn't like one side is always correct, the other always wrong.
Other than a reason to demean an opposing thought, I can't really see a purpose to this study.