19 ms·

Mine is remarkably similar, though less general: "if p=.05, then running a bogus experiment 20 times ensures you'll publish." Suddenly, the abysmal state of nu

Mine is remarkably similar, though less general: "if p=.05, then running a bogus experiment 20 times ensures you'll publish." Suddenly, the abysmal state of nutritional epidemiology makes sense. How many labs do you suspect are running "red meat = death" studies?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
One is reminded of an XKCD classic - https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/. Sadly, it only goes to point out the sad state of contemporary science. Especially in terms of nutrition, the only way to stay sane is to stick to the good old street-fighting Bayes - if popularly consumed product X was leading to cancer in any way relevant to your life, you'd see people dropping like flies all over the place.
- omginternets 11y ago
  >contemporary science I suspect you already know this, but it bears repetition, if only because it keeps us optimistic: science is a process. Even nutritional epidemiology will eventually find its way out of the abyss. :) And yes: the ol' jellybean XKCD is quite a propos.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I agree - but sadly, the key word here is "eventually". It's little of a consolation if you'd like to use some new knowledge today. So as it stands now, I classify every new and contemporary (younger than 10 years) study in psychology, sociology and nutrition as "not science" and "quackery" by default, until proven otherwise. I also assume that any science news reporting in any field is an outright lie with an agenda. Rarely do I see a counterexample. Seriously, science reporting does way more harm than bad research itself.
    - omginternets 11y ago
      > psychology I'd encourage you to be careful in dismissing the entirety of experimental psychology (full disclosure: I'm a cognitive neuroscientist, which is what a psychologist calls himself when he wants to distance himself from social psych). The reproduction crisis doesn't touch all fields of psych in equivalent ways. When you reject the field as a whole, you're also rejecting stuff like this: http://cavlab.net/?lang=en http://cavlab.net/?lang=en

TeMPOraL 11y ago

One is reminded of an XKCD classic - https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/. Sadly, it only goes to point out the sad state of contemporary science. Especially in terms of nutrition, the only way to stay sane is to stick to the good old street-fighting Bayes - if popularly consumed product X was leading to cancer in any way relevant to your life, you'd see people dropping like flies all over the place.

omginternets 11y ago
>contemporary science I suspect you already know this, but it bears repetition, if only because it keeps us optimistic: science is a process. Even nutritional epidemiology will eventually find its way out of the abyss. :) And yes: the ol' jellybean XKCD is quite a propos.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I agree - but sadly, the key word here is "eventually". It's little of a consolation if you'd like to use some new knowledge today. So as it stands now, I classify every new and contemporary (younger than 10 years) study in psychology, sociology and nutrition as "not science" and "quackery" by default, until proven otherwise. I also assume that any science news reporting in any field is an outright lie with an agenda. Rarely do I see a counterexample. Seriously, science reporting does way more harm than bad research itself.
  - omginternets 11y ago
    > psychology I'd encourage you to be careful in dismissing the entirety of experimental psychology (full disclosure: I'm a cognitive neuroscientist, which is what a psychologist calls himself when he wants to distance himself from social psych). The reproduction crisis doesn't touch all fields of psych in equivalent ways. When you reject the field as a whole, you're also rejecting stuff like this: http://cavlab.net/?lang=en http://cavlab.net/?lang=en