• 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.