That isn't the point of studies finding results that seem "intuitive"
The point is that designing laws, regulations, guidelines, safety standards, etc, based on "intuition" is not very rational.
The point is that designing laws, regulations, guidelines, safety standards, etc, based on "intuition" is not very rational.
I tell you I feel good if there's more greenery in the city, you want proof to see "how" good before you build more parks?
"Effects of things on depression" doesn't seem like such a crazy thing to need to quantify.
> I tell you I feel good if there's more greenery in the city, you want proof to see "how" good before you build more parks?
A very disingenuous comparison, I think. There's a pretty big difference between that and "What is the effect of certain environmental stimuli during surgery"
I'd really rather not have surgeons explore this question on their own.
I don't disagree that we don't need nearly as much data on some things as others - but I do still want data supporting reasons to spend millions of public dollars.
How much resource to allocate to this treatment vs other treatments having a positive effect.
Somewhere there ends up being a trade off that I will caricature as "Do we want another hospital OR another park?"
(All the above is idealised, the biggest win that moves the efficient frontier outwards is effectively fighting corruption and being vigilant defending the gains made. This seems to be universal across countries and cultures).