• CannonFodder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Haha. I was doing stem type work before it was called that! Not that I’ve done any real science for decades, but I certainly know the process. Ask yourself why you are so worried about covering for the bad science of this article that you’d take to insults instead of facing the clear facts? And no, I don’t ‘like’ the results - I wish we didn’t have racism in the system, but that’s got nothing to do with it. As I’ve said multiple times and you seem incapable of absorbing, I’m not arguing against the paper because I don’t think there’s racism in the system, in fact I’ve said explicitly that I think there is. It’s the bad science that actually hurts the effort to fix these things. So why are you arguing against me here? Do you think this paper was good science? Do you think we should ignore bad scientific method if it shows results we want to see? Or if it shows results we are pretty sure are right but it’s methods are flawed? See - that’s bad science, which any stem educated person would know.

    • TimothyOilpants@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’ve already admitted you haven’t read the paper… Only an article covering it… Take your bullshit and indignation somewhere else.

      We’re done here.

      • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Honestly I was hoping someone with access to the paper might have explained the data gathering and it would turn out that that the research had actually done a much better job than what the article made it look like. Maybe that was lazy of me, my bad. But it seemed to instead trigger a bunch of people.