this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
176 points (95.8% liked)
science
19489 readers
933 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Who is funding this calibre of research, they also found dogs are more likely to bite if you kick them in the head.
In the western scientific model, this is how we differentiate truths from anecdotes and assumptions. Not sure why this needs to be repeated in every thread about the results of research.
No one is casting aspersions on the scientific method or the value of research, what is questionable in this case is that the conclusion simply follows naturally from the hypothesis. The proposition here is that people who have opposing political views are more likely to be antagonistic to each other, that is a tautology.
And yet, you’ll see many people posting elsewhere on social media that it shouldn’t be relevant.
Can’t imagine trying to share a life with someone who didn’t share my values, but there seems to be a contingent that think that other things should be more important.
In your original comment, it seemed like you were questioning why the study was funded, then compared it to another obvious cause-effect about kicking a dog. Did I misunderstand?
The conclusion might have confirmed your personal hypothesis, but we don't assume that any conclusion "naturally follows" a hypothesis without measuring it.
The way you phrased it is a tautology, but the study didn't measure antagonism. It measured whether couples broke up or not.