Well, I know it seems daunting, but the good news is you really wouldn't have to do such a study. It's been done many, many times.*
My point really just comes back to this:
due to the enormous ability of human beings to abandon reason in making decisions.
now buttressed with "readily apparent."
If we seriously expect others to provide scientific proof, we simply need to know if we have it for our own statements. Or are we just making fact out of conjecture?
I like the scientific approach and use it to my benefit frequently. It helps me accomplish things that build on the science of others to achieve results that would be beyond my capability to understand without it. Even if I disagree with someone else's preference, at least I can know why I choose my preference over another's and what's at work that makes that happen.
OTOH, I am not an objectivist, and hope not to be one any time soon. Neither do I consider myself a subjectivist. So that puts a pinch on those who want to divide everything into two camps. We get that binary simplicity dumped on us from all directions these days: red or blue state, pro or anti, free enterprise or anticompetitive, saved or hell-bound, blah, blah, blah.
We often admonish others for "I just know..." kinds of statements. We ask them to put up or shut, with such tried-and-true show stoppers as the nigh impossible ABX test with ideal controls and a massive sample base and external observation by credible parties. Oh, and make that replicable, BTW.
So my message is simply if you're treading the path of science, don't throw out "I just know" "It's readily apparent" "It's obvious to all" "Anyone can see" "I don't need to prove such common knowledge" types of statements, unless you can back them up. One of the nice things about many of Arny's posts is that there are plenty of references to check to bolster (or cast doubt on) his statements. (Just kidding about the doubt thing, Arny.
) And I think most of us know that if he's asked, he can usually provide more.
Look, we all make unsupported statements all the time, and generally they're simply accepted. But those of us who ask others for proof that meets our standards must be prepared with all of our facts to meet that same standard.
I probably was taking tequila shots with some friends while watching the Jeff Beck Live at Ronnie Scott's Bluray at 90+ dB at Midnight in my little HT when I noticed this exchange. Then, if you believe in such things (and if you do, where's the study?) Satan told me to ask RobertR, who had done a credible job here:
It's true that "science" people are capable of making errors and engaging in wishful thinking (although the degree to which they do this is miniscule compared to what subjectivists and other mystics do). That's why EVERY scientific study MUST lay out its methodology so that it can be subject to critical peer review. But this hardly constitutes a criticism of science; rather, it's a strength.
(minus the gratuitous "subjectivists and other mystics" shot of course); anyway Beelzebub whispered to ask him for some science to back up the "enormous ability of human beings" assertion to be able to separate it from wishful thinking.* I know no one wants to read an actual study about human behavior here, so I'll link to an easy-to-read slideshow that has all the ammo needed to make more accurate and supportable statements about why people do the things they do. In fact, if you think about some of the processes described in this thing, you can apply it to a lot to what happens in these threads.