[throwaway8581]

Yes, it does. This is exactly how you pick holes at research. What factors didn't it look at? That helps us understand the limits of what we can deduce from the data. Can we think of an intuitive story about why those factors might have a causal relationship to the thing being measured? If so, we have especially good reason to be skeptical of any conclusions from the study that don't address that possible explanation.

Somewhere in the last couple of decades, the SCIENCE WORKS, BITCHES people seem to have forgotten how real science is actually done. Intuition, anecdote, common sense, hunches are very important parts of the process.

[WhompingWindows]

Science works that way in the minds of scientists, whose vast experience gives them dozens of actual data studies they've read to speculate from. Researchers have read about thousands of cases, they're the ones with the refined intuition, not forum readers.

Specifically: Is it productive for HN users to have anecdotal evidence rise to the top, or actual peer-reviewed evidence from studies with N=100 or N=10,000? I'd argue if layman HN users have time to read only one comment, we should upvote the N>1 comments, not N=1.

From the guidelines: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

We went from an international article (N=745k) to anecdata, which is a downgrade of substance in my view.