The interesting thing about this story is that the details are so unlikely that there are "obvious reasons for doubt"; from a 17% mostly negative reply rate to a 87% mostly positive reply reply rate on name only is a huge difference and very unsubtle.
I think it should be obvious that this person never actually ran the experiment, and merely reported what they expected the difference to be.
"It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it could have been true" is a particular kind of reasoning I've seen a few times over the years, from different ideological perspectives.
I think it should be obvious that this person never actually ran the experiment, and merely reported what they expected the difference to be.
"It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it could have been true" is a particular kind of reasoning I've seen a few times over the years, from different ideological perspectives.