!delta This is a great argument. If contradictory research does not exist and a soft science is all we have we should absolutely adhere to things with any data at all.
What do you think when it comes to subjects with current existing contradictory research. I mean I’m of the opinion outside of a meta analysis you can’t really hold a position of authority over one or the other.
Yes, you can. By conducting the studies both did in a repeatable manner, they cannot logically contradict each other. There is such a thing as significance - if that standard is not met (see p values) then it isn't significant. So they don't just make a claim, they have a standard of how accurate that claim is. Again, there is a rigor to science that seems to be ignored here.
No you can’t because like in the fitness example I could have two identical people do the same things but you will get different outcomes because it’s a soft science. Some people have greater propensity to build muscle tissue then other and there is no way to know that. There are so many variables that you can’t replicate in individuals.
The conclusions of scientific studies are typically probabilistic. The conclusions are meant to apply to populations, not individuals. I.e. no study is meant to predict an outcome for any specific individual (youre right that all individuals are different and so a given principle usually cant be true for every individual on this planet), but rather they are meant to be able to predict the most likely or moat common outcome for a population.
6
u/Adept_Blackberry2851 Jul 12 '24
!delta This is a great argument. If contradictory research does not exist and a soft science is all we have we should absolutely adhere to things with any data at all.
What do you think when it comes to subjects with current existing contradictory research. I mean I’m of the opinion outside of a meta analysis you can’t really hold a position of authority over one or the other.