• morrowind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Except that wasn’t the question asked:

    "People shouldn’t smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the cigarette fumes.” Then they were asked to respond to a parallel statement about driving: “People shouldn’t drive in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the car fumes.”

    All it asks is whether people “shouldn’t” do x. If I understand people must do x, I’m not gonna say they “shouldn’t” just because I’m aware it has side-effects.

    Furthermore, I went through the actual study and honestly the other questions are not any better. I’d say this study proves precisely nothing about car brain.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I don’t recall reading comments on any article that mentions study results where there isn’t someone doing exactly this. If I’m to believe comments like yours, no legitimate study has ever been reported on

      When any study is reported on, suddenly every Internet user is an excellent judge of what constitutes a good study.

      Curious, are you a scientist or some other authority on such matters? Seriously want to know.

      • morrowind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        If you follow your logic to its full conclusion, you’re essentially saying

        1. You believe all dissenting opinions and thus all studies are invalid
        2. You believe no dissenting opinions and thus all studies are valid

        This is not a very useful line of thinking. The existence of dissent over most studies does not mean all the dissent is invalid.

        As for your other question, no I’m not a scientist, just a student

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I don’t follow this. I supposed to pick one or are both opposing views true at once?

          What I’m actually saying is that it would be nice, if literally once in life, a study offered a conclusion and that was that. Sometimes it weighs on the soul to think that all information is potentially false and that no source can be trusted.

          I am all for questioning data and finding the truth. But as I said, the fact that it’s never a thing that everyone can agree on literally anything, is exhausting.

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      The idea that they must do x is the normativity they’re testing. You must drive a car isn’t an absolutely true statement, it’s an assumption you make based off your experiences, but many people do fine without a car.

      Just like the statement a man must date a woman isn’t true. It may be true for you who are heterosexual and for everyone you know who is dating but it’s not absolutely true. So questions like should a man be able to marry another man may seem wrong to someone who “understands” men can only be romantic with women but that’s a false assumption. That normativity and those assumptions then hurt people who live outside those norms.

      • morrowind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sure but that proves nothing beyond that people think it’s more necessary to drive through certain areas rather than smoke there. It’s not indicative of any special car brain.