this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
245 points (96.2% liked)
science
19501 readers
1107 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In the western scientific model, this is how we differentiate truths from anecdotes and assumptions. Not sure why this needs to be repeated in every thread about the results of research.
No one is casting aspersions on the scientific method or the value of research, what is questionable in this case is that the conclusion simply follows naturally from the hypothesis. The proposition here is that people who have opposing political views are more likely to be antagonistic to each other, that is a tautology.
And yet, you’ll see many people posting elsewhere on social media that it shouldn’t be relevant.
Can’t imagine trying to share a life with someone who didn’t share my values, but there seems to be a contingent that think that other things should be more important.
In your original comment, it seemed like you were questioning why the study was funded, then compared it to another obvious cause-effect about kicking a dog. Did I misunderstand?
The conclusion might have confirmed your personal hypothesis, but we don't assume that any conclusion "naturally follows" a hypothesis without measuring it.
The way you phrased it is a tautology, but the study didn't measure antagonism. It measured whether couples broke up or not.
The research subject as quoted is a tautology, people separate because they have irreconcilable differences, opposing political views is an irreconcilable difference so the conclusion of the research is that couples with irreconcilable differences are more likely to suffer from the problems associated with irreconcilable differences.
Because America is fucked and the rest of the West is just a couple steps behind them.