We hypothesize that this embodied experience will elicit morally salient emotions like disgust and anger. By inducing this moral discomfort, the intervention aims to foster self-awareness and encourage a reconsideration of the behavior’s impact, serving as a potential strategy to promote behavioral change.
It speaks to a truly fundemental lack of understanding of the scientific method, given you’re criticizing them for their hypothesis and presenting it like it’s their conclusion. That’s just not how science works.
So you’re talking about my reading on the paper, not the paper’s conclusion.
Yes, because your conclusion of what the paper is saying is absolutely not what the paper actually says.
Which is exactly what they in fact said in their hypothesis.
Yes, in their hypothesis. It seems evident that you don’t know what a hypothesis is in a scientific paper given you keep incorrectly presenting something taken from the hypothesis as a claim the authors are making.
This is so basic it’s literally taught in the first grade. You have absolutely no grounds from which to criticize this article if you do not even understand the basic structures of scientific inquiry, foremost in this particular discussion that the ideas in a hypothesis are by no means automatically going to be reflected in the conclusion.
I’ve never once claimed (or implied) that the author’s hypothesis wasn’t supported by their conclusion, just that basing your criticisms off the hypothesis belies a total lack of understanding for how the scientific process works - and showed that at that point you hadn’t even read the paper, or you could have simply quoted the relevant portion from the conclusion.
What I initially was pointing out is that this criticism,
This implies that the participants would not have felt disgust or anger had their avatar been male; or if it was a normal videogame; or if this wasn’t a game at all but a film instead; or if this wasn’t audiovisual but a book instead…
was completely baseless. It still is, too.
(my statement and the author’s conclusions absolutely agree, as well. I don’t… see how you could misinterpret that. It’s really explicitly clear.)
Here’s how I came to that conclusion.
That’s… the hypothesis.
Ok lol not sure where this is going, but we’re done.
It speaks to a truly fundemental lack of understanding of the scientific method, given you’re criticizing them for their hypothesis and presenting it like it’s their conclusion. That’s just not how science works.
Removed by mod
Yes, because your conclusion of what the paper is saying is absolutely not what the paper actually says.
Yes, in their hypothesis. It seems evident that you don’t know what a hypothesis is in a scientific paper given you keep incorrectly presenting something taken from the hypothesis as a claim the authors are making.
This is so basic it’s literally taught in the first grade. You have absolutely no grounds from which to criticize this article if you do not even understand the basic structures of scientific inquiry, foremost in this particular discussion that the ideas in a hypothesis are by no means automatically going to be reflected in the conclusion.
Removed by mod
I’ve never once claimed (or implied) that the author’s hypothesis wasn’t supported by their conclusion, just that basing your criticisms off the hypothesis belies a total lack of understanding for how the scientific process works - and showed that at that point you hadn’t even read the paper, or you could have simply quoted the relevant portion from the conclusion.
What I initially was pointing out is that this criticism,
was completely baseless. It still is, too.
(my statement and the author’s conclusions absolutely agree, as well. I don’t… see how you could misinterpret that. It’s really explicitly clear.)
Removed by mod