• Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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.

        • Tedesche@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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
            ·
            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

      • 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.