LogFAQs > #894865050

Mal_Fet posted...

You're really trying hard to act like not citing a single refutation of it is gonna prove you're right. But look, it has been 20 years since that study was peer-reviewed and published with your 1988 study already known to the psychologist community for a decade. Obviously, those peers did not believe that the refutation you posted was relevant to the 1998 study.

Disproving Peterson's source is really easy; post a source disproving (specifically) the 1998 study and I will accept it like I did earlier before I realized you were trying to pull a fast one. It's been out for 20 years. If the study is wrong, a refutation exists. So where is it?

That's not the way science or scientific evidence works. You know this, but you are hanging onto the technicality of the different paper because you think it's a technical win. It's intellectually dishonest, and should be transparent to everyone. The study isn't "wrong", it's just likely a statistical anomaly hidden by the file drawer effect.

The theory, the fundamental theory he is talking about when using that paper as a citation, has been called into question in the recent years. Very simple, if something seems like it doesn't exist, you don't cite literature and advise people based on it.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]