Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 25, 2019 at 10:39 comment added Elmy @John I think the edits you made really improve the quality of your answer and draw attention to the reason why the scientists claim that the rats would have starved although none of them actually did. It could be further improved, though, if you quoted vital information like "no deviation from this pattern was observed no matter how deprived the animals were" directly from the study. As it is, we cannot know how much of your answer was quoted and how much you recalled, rewrote or drew your own conclusions.
Jan 25, 2019 at 1:14 history edited John CC BY-SA 4.0
added 2048 characters in body
Jan 25, 2019 at 1:07 history edited John CC BY-SA 4.0
added 2048 characters in body
Jan 23, 2019 at 3:25 review Low quality posts
Jan 28, 2019 at 8:33
Jan 22, 2019 at 23:34 comment added Oddthinking I don't think you have. You have explained why the experiment wasn't allowed to proceed, but not that the unperformed experiment would necessarily have the expected conclusion, which is surely the question here.
Jan 22, 2019 at 23:23 comment added John The OP makes it seem like the conclusion they would starve was not well founded, I tired to emphasise why it was and still is very well founded.
Jan 22, 2019 at 23:17 history edited John CC BY-SA 4.0
added 158 characters in body
Jan 22, 2019 at 23:14 comment added Oddthinking Welcome to Skeptics! This doesn't answer the question - the OP explained that he knew about the Olds and Milner experiments, and he knew the rats weren't permitted to starve. This just repeats that fact.
Jan 22, 2019 at 23:10 review First posts
Jan 23, 2019 at 3:21
Jan 22, 2019 at 23:08 history answered John CC BY-SA 4.0