You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on Marketing Rationality - Less Wrong Discussion

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.

Article Navigation

Comments (220)

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit