101–110 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a rather explicit use of the Naturalistic Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
"The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature..." (3rd paragraph in your link)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, because if you had the name you'd have no further questions. There's just no way to condense enough important information into the headline, and the chemical name would mean nothing for 99% of people.
If I already know TCE is dangerous and need to be avoided I might not need to read the article or I could if I need further information. But if I need to click to get the basic information it's clickbait.
Since this is related to a Marine base, I’ll give you an example. What if the headline was “2/4 gets new Bradleys”
To a Marine, it’s a clear headline: 2nd Battalion 4th Marine Regiment gets new armored personnel carriers”. But to a laymen a better headline would be “Marine unit gets new Tanks.” The former would be almost deliberately meaningless to a casual reader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, because if you had the name you'd have no further questions. There's just no way to condense enough important information into the headline, and the chemical name would mean nothing for 99% of people.
If you have the name you can start searching for things that has it right away.
That chemical is trichloroethylene. Even Science does clickbait now.
There are two other issues with this... 1. The authors only studied two military camps. One with high TCE levels, and one with low TCE levels. But, obviously, there might be any number of other factors that are different between the two camps with a causal relationship to Parkinson's Disease. 2. There is an active class action lawsuit from this military camp. Doing a limited study that benefits one side of a class ac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, because if you had the name you'd have no further questions. There's just no way to condense enough important information into the headline, and the chemical name would mean nothing for 99% of people.
If I already know TCE is dangerous and need to be avoided I might not need to read the article or I could if I need further information. But if I need to click to get the basic information it's clickbait.
But, you don't know that, right? How many people would? 1% has to be a vast overestimate. What exactly are we optimizing for, saving a tiny minority from having to click once and read a single sentence?
It seems like "clickbait" has morphed into "any headline that does not make its associated article completely redundant".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no clue what trichloroethylene is so I think the title is fair. It could be a stone for all I know.
A very effective organic solvent. Used in dry cleaning and formerly in chip making in SV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this - If you don't enjoy the experience of drinking coffee, and just want the caffeine, then why not just take a caffeine pill?
Caffeine pills it's a bit easy to unconciously take too much and get all jittery, and it's not really spread out enough. Optimal consumption of caffeine seems to be a decent-sized initial intake, then smaller doses over time to maintain (eg take a few more sips). There's no good way to do that with pills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you drink coffee if not for the caffeine. It's not exactly the most delicious drink.
I don't understand this - If you don't enjoy the experience of drinking coffee, and just want the caffeine, then why not just take a caffeine pill?