| "A study then in 1919" That alone is almost enough to discount it right there. Even studies done only 50 years ago are often discounted by scientists today because of their poor quality and lack of rigor compared to today's studies. A study done 100 years ago is likely to be even worse. But even were it not, we have to ask: - What study? - Was it published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? - How large was the study? - Was it double-blind? - Were the results statistically significant? When even very recent studies are mentioned on HN, they're often torn apart for not having met one or more of these and other criteria. Yet at other times mere mention of "a study", some anonymous study done 100 years ago, published who knows where, of completely unknown quality is supposed to be given credence just because it's "a study"? |