Encyclopedia of American Loons: #652: Werner Erhard

Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)8/19/2013 7:44:31 am PDT

re: #27 pittee

I would not answer that without sufficient context for the whole world of it to be on the table and am unable and unwilling to endeavour to do that. So, sure, you can read it that way if you wish but I am expressly not expressing what you are reading into it.

This doesn’t make any sense. let me give you a very simple example:

There was a rule against eating at my desk at the last place I worked. I didn’t restrain myself from eating at my desk because of a threat of force, but because it was a rule at the job and someone would have scolded me if I had.

Does this make sense to you as a trivial example of how adults are stopped from doing something?

*It can still be called woo by people with opposing views who do not support the studies or who have conflicting points of views.

But thankfully, since it’s science, we can simply compare the studies and see which ones are well-done.

It is theoretical, and as woo as anything can be.

No, we’re not talking about theory, we’re actually talking about application.

Trust me, for every ten people who buy into a “study” you have bought into, there are ten people who say it is flawed, incorrect, incomplete, biased or invalid.

I don’t actually trust you, because this isn’t true. Or rather, most social scientists, psychologists, et al. would say that almost every study is limited or incomplete, but that’s obvious. But that’s not a demerit— a limited study is good because it’s focused. And likewise, all studies are not created equal. A double-blind study in the effect of racial prejudice on hiring before and after sensitivity training, for example, with a large N and no researcher participation, is much better than a study that wasn’t double-blind, had a small N, and had researcher participation.