5 ms·

Mainstream media? Sure, I agree. But listening to reports on actual science, I disagree. Saying that people should "start thinking for themselves" is disingenu

Mainstream media? Sure, I agree. But listening to reports on actual science, I disagree. Saying that people should "start thinking for themselves" is disingenuous I believe. For one, this is how we get shit like faith healing, homeopathy, healing crystals and so on. "Normal" people don't have the resources to test a hypothesis, nor the time in most cases. Say you have cancer. What's better? Thinking for yourself and eating a naked mole rat every day for dinner because "they don't get cancer"? Or read some reports and research that apply to your case, and go to a doctor armed with some extra information that will help you both make an informed decision about a treatment? The problem lies entirely at the feet of the media. Lack of scientific training and a desire to create interesting, attention-grabbing headlines makes for situations exactly what you're complaining about. But this is no reason to eschew science. Science is doing what it does: conducting studies that only test for the smallest amount of variables as possible. It'll be a long time before science will be able to perfectly say "a human of type foo must live exactly like this to achieve maximum potential in life". This is a huge ever-changing puzzle, and while we might have the edges built (my grandma taught me you always put the edges together first) we don't even have all the pieces out of the box. Science finds a piece with a tiny flower on it and the media happily exclaims the puzzle is a picture of a garden.

jazzyk 11y ago
"The problem lies entirely at the feet of the media." No, not entirely. You assume scientists are objective and have no agenda. A lot of research is "sponsored" by corporate interests. The first paragraph one should read in a research report is the "source of funding" disclosure, then adjust for bias (or ignore entirely).
- michaeltoth 11y ago
  Scientists are also incentivized by the publishing system to find noteworthy results, which often leads to finding evidence where there is none, especially in fields like nutrition where the signal to noise ratio is so low
  - jacobr1 11y ago
    Or just as common but perhaps more misleading: results in isolation. Even with solid protocols and methods plenty studies, say with rat models, have a very limited factor they are testing, and identifying if there is an impact compared to a control. Unfortunately the baseline model parameters might have a huge impact on any difference observed. Like say diet prior to the study. Or genetics other than what was modified for the study. Or any number of similar things. Changing a single variable in a complex, non-linear, non-closed system with doesn't necessarily generalize to other conditions. So even good studies can mislead until they've been replicated and many variants attempted and some underlying mechanism identified.
- TheCraiggers 11y ago
  Very true, and in fact I had "almost entirely" there for a brief moment. Although I'd like to offer the counter-argument that journalists should be listing known agendas and funding sources that may create biases when reporting on these stories. That's their job. I know it's an idealist pipe-dream, but to me a journalist's highest calling is reporting on corruption and corporate shenanigans exactly like that. So yes, this is more of a shared problem, but the media has let us down here, too.
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    "journalist's highest calling is reporting on corruption and corporate shenanigans" I agree, but that ship has sailed a while ago :-( Traditional, corrupt and/or click-baity journalism is slowly being replaced by guerilla news sites (such as Drudge, ZeroHedge, etc.), but I am not aware community-driven scientific paper review sites (i have not been looking much, though)
leonroy 11y ago
Didn't 'studies' proclaim the benefits of polyunsaturated fats like margarine over butter in the 70s and 80s and then go and reverse position recently? Considering the amount of 'bad' science about (poor quality studies or those with an agenda) I think there's a lot to be said for common sense. Good quality food, as close to its natural form as possible, eat it in moderation and exercise accordingly.
yellowapple 11y ago
> Thinking for yourself and eating a naked mole rat every day for dinner because "they don't get cancer"? I bet naked mole rats taste great. I wouldn't hold it against anyone. That said, the problem runs even deeper than what you indicate: "mainstream media" (and even not-so-mainstream media) also tends toward things like faith healing and magic crystals and "a $GEOLOCATION_RESULT mom discovered this one stupid trick and doctors HATE her!" because humans are enamored by the extraordinary and tend to give extraordinary things undue attention. It's rare to find a news organization that doesn't fall victim to this for the simple reason that they are run by humans who - more often than not - have difficulty identifying and addressing such biases, and in turn inadvertently pass them on to their readers and viewers. This is the same reason why Peter Popoff - despite having been uncovered as a fraud decades ago - is still in business, getting paid programming on the Discovery Channel while selling "Chernobyl water" that's probably from some tap in Odessa, TX. Humans crave the extraordinary, and when they don't, they crave wealth.

jazzyk 11y ago

"The problem lies entirely at the feet of the media." No, not entirely. You assume scientists are objective and have no agenda. A lot of research is "sponsored" by corporate interests. The first paragraph one should read in a research report is the "source of funding" disclosure, then adjust for bias (or ignore entirely).

michaeltoth 11y ago
Scientists are also incentivized by the publishing system to find noteworthy results, which often leads to finding evidence where there is none, especially in fields like nutrition where the signal to noise ratio is so low
- jacobr1 11y ago
  Or just as common but perhaps more misleading: results in isolation. Even with solid protocols and methods plenty studies, say with rat models, have a very limited factor they are testing, and identifying if there is an impact compared to a control. Unfortunately the baseline model parameters might have a huge impact on any difference observed. Like say diet prior to the study. Or genetics other than what was modified for the study. Or any number of similar things. Changing a single variable in a complex, non-linear, non-closed system with doesn't necessarily generalize to other conditions. So even good studies can mislead until they've been replicated and many variants attempted and some underlying mechanism identified.
TheCraiggers 11y ago
Very true, and in fact I had "almost entirely" there for a brief moment. Although I'd like to offer the counter-argument that journalists should be listing known agendas and funding sources that may create biases when reporting on these stories. That's their job. I know it's an idealist pipe-dream, but to me a journalist's highest calling is reporting on corruption and corporate shenanigans exactly like that. So yes, this is more of a shared problem, but the media has let us down here, too.
- jazzyk 11y ago
  "journalist's highest calling is reporting on corruption and corporate shenanigans" I agree, but that ship has sailed a while ago :-( Traditional, corrupt and/or click-baity journalism is slowly being replaced by guerilla news sites (such as Drudge, ZeroHedge, etc.), but I am not aware community-driven scientific paper review sites (i have not been looking much, though)

leonroy 11y ago

Didn't 'studies' proclaim the benefits of polyunsaturated fats like margarine over butter in the 70s and 80s and then go and reverse position recently? Considering the amount of 'bad' science about (poor quality studies or those with an agenda) I think there's a lot to be said for common sense. Good quality food, as close to its natural form as possible, eat it in moderation and exercise accordingly.

yellowapple 11y ago

> Thinking for yourself and eating a naked mole rat every day for dinner because "they don't get cancer"? I bet naked mole rats taste great. I wouldn't hold it against anyone. That said, the problem runs even deeper than what you indicate: "mainstream media" (and even not-so-mainstream media) also tends toward things like faith healing and magic crystals and "a $GEOLOCATION_RESULT mom discovered this one stupid trick and doctors HATE her!" because humans are enamored by the extraordinary and tend to give extraordinary things undue attention. It's rare to find a news organization that doesn't fall victim to this for the simple reason that they are run by humans who - more often than not - have difficulty identifying and addressing such biases, and in turn inadvertently pass them on to their readers and viewers. This is the same reason why Peter Popoff - despite having been uncovered as a fraud decades ago - is still in business, getting paid programming on the Discovery Channel while selling "Chernobyl water" that's probably from some tap in Odessa, TX. Humans crave the extraordinary, and when they don't, they crave wealth.