• Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that was the case, but the point is the study doesn’t actually prove it and it admits that.

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand the study’s basic methodology. It doesn’t change my point. And I don’t know that it’s never going to be provable. Maybe with enough data we could find a very subtle pattern that proves it. The point is, this study doesn’t, nor do any of the others on their own, but they collectively provide evidence that the hypothesis may be true.

        • Yendor@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You realise you’ve just described science there. Nothing can ever be conclusively proven, you can only disprove it, or build more evidence for it.

          • Tedesche@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, I’m not. Ironically, I think you are. But I’m tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to.

            • TheDeadGuy@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree with you, it’s in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched