Comment · Fri, November 14, 2014 · Ceretropic
How does /r/nootrpics feel about anecdotal reports?
Original post in this thread
smellybaconreader · 9 points
Inspired by this thread over in /r/psychology, I'm curious how this community views anecdotal evidence. Sift through any thread in this subreddit and you'll find dozens of anecdotal nootropic reports. To me, that's frustrating.
I can't help but to agree with the posters over in that thread who are decidely against anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is the lowest form of scientific evidence; it's notoriously unreliable, and borderline useless. Pretty much the only value I see is to generate hypotheses which can be scientifically tested.
What do you guys think?
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Also, please excuse my painful typo in the title.
What they were answering
smellybaconreader · 2 points
/u/shillthrill[1] is usually the one posting most of the studies he finds.
I try to emulate /u/shrillthrill's redditing style, when I actually have the time to post. His posts are sort-of what I wish the science-y subreddits would evolve into.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
We need more scientific studies being posted. However, we also need more in-depth discussions on those posts. The studies are great for those that know how to read them, and have access to pull down the full texts. But other newer nootropics users usually just glance over them, and don't get much out of it. That is where more structured discussions would help.