Quite simple - any "research" that claims a broad hypothesis based on a sample size of 83 subjects is "junk science". The fact that this is paraded by the OP and the authors as definitive of anything is a joke.
Well, now we're getting somewhere. Even if your statement is
deeply flawed. For one, small sample sizes are used
everyday in
every scientific field. Hell, the testing of vaccines is done on small sample sizes first and so is Phase II. Does that make vaccine research junk science? According to you,
yes. Hell, according to you, it's junk science
from the beginning because small samples of people are used. Better stop getting vaccinated people!
Let's look at another field though shall we? What about research that goes into animal populations? Well, if you're studying cows and sheep, you're fine. If you're studying pandas, tigers, and some bears there really isn't a large to go around and yet we know the gestation periods of each one, how they breed and even behavior. According to you though, it's all junk science because the sample size isn't large enough for your liking.
What about geology? Well, if your
claim that small sample sizes made studies junk science, then we'd be pretty screwed for studies on the moon. Yet, we know more about the moon than we know about what's in the ocean because of the small samples brought back 40 years ago. However, according to you it's all junk science because the samples weren't large enough for your
subjective standard of what is and isn't junk science.
What about QA? Is research into that junk science? Well according to you it is. Do you realize that you use a myriad of appliances where out of hundreds of thousands which may be sold, only 1 or 2 are tested per 10 thousand? Do you distrust the sticker which says your microwave is safe? Because it's more than likely that only a 100 out of 100,000 were tested for any significant amount of time before the product hit the market. Again, small sample size which determines the overwhelming majority of the products to be safe and you have no problem trusting it. Kind of strange, no?
As for the second part of your statement. The part about this being "definitive". Did you actually
read the results? Did you read the news article? Because
neither states that the study is "definitive of anything". The researchers made an effort to avoid the word definitive. However, it did state that their results could be replicated time and time again. Now here are their assertions for what the results do suggest:
These results provide strong support for the idea that fundamental neural processing differences that emerge under the challenge of emotionally evocative stimuli may serve to structure political beliefs in ways formerly unappreciated.
In other words, the study suggest that
how your brain reacts to the world is
related to your political beliefs. No kidding. This
literally is no different than saying that life experiences affect whether a person becomes liberal or conservative. What? Did you think that was just an axiom related to the physical world and unrelated to how your brain works? Well... apparently... not because other researchers have been piecing the puzzle to this for... well decades:
Study Predicts Political Beliefs With 83 Percent Accuracy | Science | Smithsonian
The study matched publicly available party registration records with the names of 82 American participants whose risk-taking behavior during a gambling experiment was monitored by brain scans. The researchers found that liberals and conservatives don’t differ in the risks they do or don’t take, but their brain activity does vary while they’re making decisions.
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives - Scientific American
For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats.
Biology and political orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The authors concluded that, "Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes."[5]
So in short, this study - your junk science - confirmed 1) what has been found in previous studies (that political attitudes and brain activity are related) and 2) conservatives and liberals think different in regards to certain issues. If your biggest complaint about it is that the sample size isn't to your liking, I'm sure from now on you'll stop trusting science for things like vaccines and electrical appliances. Wait....
I didn't know I didn't have chicken pox as a child and no doctor ever asked me so getting a chicken pox vaccine was never an issue - as for now, yes I've been vaccinated for shingles.
Good evening Lady P - I wish you a mentally and physically healthy evening and long lifetime too. Like avoiding trips to Africa without the proper vaccinations, be sure any trip you're planning to DC is equally well prepared.
Vaccines: Resdev/Vaccine Testing and Approval Process
Clinical development is a three-phase process. During Phase I, small groups of people receive the trial vaccine. In Phase II, the clinical study is expanded and vaccine is given to people who have characteristics (such as age and physical health) similar to those for whom the new vaccine is intended. In Phase III, the vaccine is given to thousands of people and tested for efficacy and safety.
https://www.iavi.org/what-we-do/science/vaccine-r-d-process
Phase I clinical trials are typically done with small groups, or cohorts, of volunteers, and principally test whether a candidate is safe for use in humans and produces an immune response
Again, better take out phase I and phase II of vaccine research because CanadaJohn thinks that small sample size makes a study
junk science.
