Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
All posts Charlie's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
dingodog

@hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner

Such papers are open to criticism on two fronts:
1. The (accurate) summaries of the research done do not actually support the conclusions of the paper
2. The References considered are either misrepresented, or are missing critical research that would support a different conclusion.

Which of these critiques are you making?

/end

1 April at 3:13 | Wall-to-wall | Open on sfba.social
2 comments
DELETED replied to dingodog

@dingodog19 @whalecoiner

Why don't you just give the name and author of the paper?

1 April at 3:17 | Open on mastodon.social
dingodog replied to DELETED

@hunkyscotsman

Sorry, I gave you the direct link, I thought that would be easier for you. But if you prefer:

"What we know about Universal Basic Income: A Cross-Synthesis of Reviews," Rebecca Hasdell, Stanford Basic Income Lab.

Here's the link again. It's a PDF.
basicincome.stanford.edu/uploa

1 April at 3:21 | Open on sfba.social
Go Up