[luketych]

What I am trying to say is that if we close our minds right away then we will miss obvious answers. We will tend to overcomplicate things and reach for our most-expensive tools.

I've read "scientific" articles that make use of the most cutting-edge statistical models in order to "prove" that something like "emotional intelligence does not correlate with success."

Ok, poor example, and I made it up. But there are many research articles out there that look impressive because of all the tools they throw at the problem. Under the surface these studies are bunk.

[apathy]

> Ok, poor example, and I made it up.

Why does this not surprise me?

Outside of mathematics, there really isn't anything resembling proof. There is the weight of the evidence, and the weight of any substantive critiques of bias in said evidence. That's about it.

> But there are many research articles out there that look impressive because of all the tools they throw at the problem. Under the surface these studies are bunk.

On this we can certainly agree. However, the replacement for a bad study is a well-designed study, not some statistical hocus pocus (1) or "going by your gut".

If your position is sound, there will (at some point) be someone bold and independently-funded enough to torpedo the status quo with a properly designed experiment. It may not happen as fast as you'd like. But there is nothing that academics like better than turning their rivals' sacred cows into hamburger. Of this I can assure you.

(1) I am a statistician, both professionally and by graduate training. I have no qualms about dismissing poorly designed studies regardless of post-hoc jiggery-pokery. A shiny autopsy won't reanimate the corpse of a dead experiment.

[luketych]

Again, you are cherrypicking any flaw you see and then attacking. For a logically-trained person you are misusing it. Being overly logical can become a negative when it is used to justify your already-held beliefs.

I do not care what you think at this point, this has already blossomed into a 1 vs 1, so anything said will just make both sides more justified in their position.

This is about onlookers. Hacker News is flawed in the same way that elections are flawed. Every user is given the same power of opinion. A losing strategy that will eventually begin to conform to the middle of the pack, condemning any opinions falling too far from the centre.

Apathy, I have to ask you. If you are getting all the votes, all the +1's, all the likes, would you ever think that maybe that is not a good sign?

[apathy]

I wouldn't say that HN is flawed the way elections are, because non readers aren't affected by what goes on here (I hope).

You logic strikes me as specious -- the proximity of an idea to the mushy middle is orthogonal to whether it is correct. Great ideas are often met with violent opposition -- but shitty ideas are, too. If I thought most people on HN were in fact dumbasses, as most of the electorate often seems to be, I would go somewhere else. It's the least worst forum (save perhaps Metafilter) I've found so it's a place where I go to procrastinate.

My job is to write, so my natural impulse when I see something that seems easily dismantled is to get in a bit of practice.

[luketych]

Well then you are getting better at applying logic blindly.

[asldjhcakjhc]

You can usually make up a bunch of conflicting stories about how some chemical will affect the body. For example, I could claim that there is an evolutionary basis for the body to assume that the taste of sugar means that food has been successfully obtained, and to react by being less conservative with calories, and reward us with a dopamine rush. Sounds like a great time to exercise!

Anyway, we can be lost in a sea of doubt with all our pet theories, or we can look at the available evidence.