Hacker News Reader

We want theories to be backed by more rigorous data precisely because "having run into this many times in their own lives" is not reliable. People's own perception is incredibly biased. We can see a bias at play in your very own closing sentence — "your study is bad if it doesn’t not confirm my existing belief" is plainly not science.

View on HN

It's not science, but also a lot of stuff that purports to be science is not. "Science" is subject to many of the same forces that politics is.

Using your personal experiences and the personal experiences of people you trust as an anchor is a good thing. It keeps you from falling for propaganda. Note that this DOES NOT mean studies conflicting with your personal experience are all wrong.

The tricky part here is understanding the limit of what your own experience can tell you.

> It's not science, but also a lot of stuff that purports to be science is not. "Science" is subject to many of the same forces that politics is.

I am glad that people are finally waking up to this.

I was explaining why people believe it. I think they are often correct in their belief. So let me ask you, have you experienced this yourself, like for a subject that you have a good knowledge of, observed someone who claims they do but is wildly off track?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com