= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
drethelin comments on How to tell apart science from pseudo-science in a field you don't know ? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (70)
Why isn't there? There would seem to have been more than enough time & funding for at least one. Is there some more subtle problem here?
(I'm thinking a scenario like "parents of autistic kids are constantly trying new approaches both quack and genuine, and would refuse to stop this, thereby making the results worthless; and this is foreseeable in advance by any would-be experimenters.")
Because there's no cure?
But there could still be studies demonstrating that some treatments had no effect.
That raises the question - did that opening sentence of the head reply mean 'showing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of any method', or 'showing a method to be effective'?
I meant to imply "effectiveness or ineffectiveness"
Thanks