Why does every post having to do with a scientifically testable question almost invariably have top comments which are purely anecdotal rather than even attempting to point at empirical evidence?<p>This is particularly noticeable in anything having to do with quality of life or lifestyle questions, including the current front page question about anti-depressants. Indeed that relatively upvoted post goes so far as to ask purely for anecdotes - neatly dismissing nearly a century of evidence on the placebo effect, the known wide variance of reactions to any intervention and a million other documented factors that render anecdotes useless. Indeed, as far as HN is concerned, we may as well be in the dark ages, taking a poll on how HNers respond to leeches.<p>On a site users often describe as a kind of oasis from the nonsense perpetuated on the rest of social media, this seems rather baffling and suggests a need for - at minimum - some self-reflection.
You might be interested in this classic article: <a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/675631" rel="nofollow">https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/675631</a><p>The author argued "yes, definitely", but most computer scientists answered "nah, too much work." People fond of $new language like to claim that if just all major software was rewritten in their favorite language life would be so much easier and bugs and security issues would be so much fewer. So you ask, "how do you know?" They answer: "It is obvious." "Have you tested it?" "There is no point, cause it is OBVIOUS!" "But if it is obvious, shouldn't it also be easy to test?" "We have NO TIME for that and if you don't see that $new language is better than $old language you are an IDIOT! Troll someone else!!" Or they'll argue that tests doesn't prove anything cause it depends on the context (like programmer skill, familiarity with $old and $new language, etc). Essentially, their hunch carries more weight than any quantitative data you could ever collect...<p>So much of software engineering is just shiny new thing after shiny new thing. No one knows whether the shiny new stuff is better than the old stuff or not. Even the book that introduced TDD & DP readily admitted that the project in which the development method was tested <i>failed</i>! Yet everyone adopted TDD because it was so "obvious" it was better.
I would imagine it's because many people have come to recognize that both forms of data have value. I might up vote a comment that was purely anecdotal that I found interesting even if that comment was something I didn't agree with or that I felt directly conflicted with well documented research. Additionally believing that any group of people online or in person is somehow intellectually superior or immune to basic human bias is a trap that will catch you again and again. Every human- no matter how smart, educated, or well read is fallible in a multitude of ways. I feel that the incidences of this increase exponentially when you get us into a social group.
If you can't test it, because you need a degree, a license, an approval, access to huge funds, it is not "scientifically testable". Once in a while, when "science" is put to test, it has failed. A lot of the times, when irregularities are pointed out, people are deplatformed, discredited, have their licenses taken away, forced to resign. Stop repeating that nonsense.<p>There's only marketing material crafted to secure funds or profits. We only have anecdotes and stories that we can rely on... and only when it comes from people we know.
If people just wanted stats or references, there are other places for that. They (we) come to a forum to discuss stuff, so anecdotes have value. Plus in general they are easier and more entertaining to process.<p>I'll also point out that your question has an anecdote in it about a current front page post. This is not a bad thing, you use it to illustrate your point, same as happens in comments.<p>(And, your headline implies without any evidence that your anecdotes make HN readers "anti-science". This is not good)
There's a replication crisis in science, in that most published literature can't be replicated. In medicine every patient is unique. It's hard to be scientific when no experiment with humans is repeatable.<p>With regards to the 'current front page question about anti-depressants': at least the mental health industry aspires to be helpful. Depression is mostly solved, except for how big business can make $$$ from simple fixes for depression.