Message from @MOS MAIORVM (AKA Sola)
Discord ID: 311373947147124737
it's similar to sample size
Is it?
Another semi fallacy
All these things
how is that a semi fallacy?
Are you proposing that a 2 week study is as reliable as a 10 year study under the same conditions?
Because ultimately the validity does not depend on how big or blind your study is
I find that doubtful
Hence semi
That's not true at all
Re what you said
It is trivially true
Its validity depends on your priors
The mechanics of what you study
I'm not debating the validity of whether cheese causes cancer
Sure. I mean in general too.
I'm debating the validity of the results of any given study based on length and size
It is well established that such factors are important
Part of the scientific method if I recall properly
Not as important as your average person considers them
Look
I'm not saying a long study makes it valid
but a long study under the same given conditions is superior to a short study
By observing the overall quality of science in terms of measurable impact or real insight
And again I say
Not necessarily
Long enough is the best one can say
Long enough is subjective
To some degree yes
Rest dependent on studied thing
Science always proceded on insight
Confirmed by experiment perhaps
Perhaps not
If we were to tally the causes of starvation to attempt to prevent it, counting only the past 100 years of history is entirely inferior to measuring the entirety of both history and prehistory.
This is objective
the more data you have the better
The better in what sense
To check against your own conclusions?
To compound an error you made?
The better understanding of what causes starvation