ChristianKl comments on Marketing Rationality - Less Wrong

28 Post author: Viliam 18 November 2015 01:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (220)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 November 2015 07:38:02PM 0 points [-]

Shangri-La diet has some scientific backing

I do believe that it works, but "scientific backing"? Did I miss some new study on the Shangri-La diet, or what are you talking about?

Comment author: Vaniver 18 November 2015 10:11:19PM 1 point [-]

People often use "scientific backing" to mean "this extrapolates reasonably from evidence" rather than "this has been tested directly."

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 November 2015 10:49:55PM *  3 points [-]

If you use the word scientific that way I think you lose a quite valuable word. I consider NLP to be extrapolated from evidence. I even have seen it tested directly a variety of times. At the same time I don't consider it to be scientific in the popular usage of 'scientific'.

For discussion on LW I think Keith Stanovich criteria's for science are good:

Three of the most important [criteria of science] are that (1) science employs methods of systematic empiricism; (2) it aims for knowledge that is publicly verifiable; and (3) it seeks problems that are empirically solvable and that yield testable theories.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 19 November 2015 01:00:39AM 3 points [-]

Agreed, good definition of science-backed.