5 ms·

To me, the problem is not scientific studies, but mainstream reporting of scientific studies that turn into popular fads and trends. Science doesn't deal in abs

To me, the problem is not scientific studies, but mainstream reporting of scientific studies that turn into popular fads and trends. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but society does. This is true for dietary fat, autism, gluten, paleo, salt, etc.

pc2g4d 11y ago
I think you give "science" too much credit. "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and all that. In an abstract sense, yes, everything in science is subject to criticism and reevaluation. But in a human sense, entire fields are dominated for decades by strong personalities whose theories aren't necessarily stronger but have greater social support. I present to you Noam Chomsky re: linguistics as a prime example. Surely I oversimplify, but I think it's important to acknowledge the human factor in what passes as scientific consensus in a field at any given time.
- nxzero 11y ago
  "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" which has been cited over 3000 times covers this topic: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...
- Retric 11y ago
  Dominate theories are not necessarily accepted as consensus. It can be hard to notice outside of the field but Noam Chomsky had far less support inside linguistics than you might think. It's a classic case where it's hard to pickup most people saying 'I have no idea', when there is a lot of talk about theory x. PS: The counter argument was simply children get feedback while learning a language. Mute children have a much harder time picking up their native language so it's not a passive process.
sbov 11y ago
Actually this just reads like scientists being blind to their own biases. One of the guys heading the original study was Ancel Keys, the father of the lipid hypothesis.
enraged_camel 11y ago
Mainstream reports it that way because the general public has no appetite for the intricate details of scientific studies. The vast majority of people tend to look for quick fixes and easy changes, which is why they gravitate towards reporting that oversimplify scientific findings. And since the media wants/needs readers/clicks to stay in business...
- twelvedogs 11y ago
  i think it's mostly that most scientific studies have no clear outcomes, people want resolutions not "we did this study, it wasn't perfect but the findings seemed to point towards this effect and more better studies should be done in this area to back up this before we can say it probably does cause this effect" is not anything anyone who isn't a scientist would care about, especially since those further studies will very likely not happen
jdminhbg 11y ago
It's hard for the mainstream media to misrepresent a study that was suppressed.
- dmix 11y ago
  The solution is not specific to this study. It's explaining that there are no absolutes and rather presenting the results with probabilities. For example, making it clear that research has shown that it is probable that it might make you healthier but is not guaranteed, based on x number of studies in the last x years.
- SapphireSun 11y ago
  I'm quite surprised that large clinical studies funded by the government didn't require publication of the dataset within some window after the experiment completed. It seems that the new trend of preregistering clinical trials and recording hypotheses up front is only now starting to catch on.
SilasX 11y ago
Was the mainstream reporting responsible for the scientists that wanted the food pyramid plastered in every classroom? Or for all the scientists who refused to use their positions to say anything to the effect of, "our confidence in that model isn't high enough to turn it into textbook advice yet"?

pc2g4d 11y ago

I think you give "science" too much credit. "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and all that. In an abstract sense, yes, everything in science is subject to criticism and reevaluation. But in a human sense, entire fields are dominated for decades by strong personalities whose theories aren't necessarily stronger but have greater social support. I present to you Noam Chomsky re: linguistics as a prime example. Surely I oversimplify, but I think it's important to acknowledge the human factor in what passes as scientific consensus in a field at any given time.

nxzero 11y ago
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" which has been cited over 3000 times covers this topic: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...
Retric 11y ago
Dominate theories are not necessarily accepted as consensus. It can be hard to notice outside of the field but Noam Chomsky had far less support inside linguistics than you might think. It's a classic case where it's hard to pickup most people saying 'I have no idea', when there is a lot of talk about theory x. PS: The counter argument was simply children get feedback while learning a language. Mute children have a much harder time picking up their native language so it's not a passive process.

sbov 11y ago

Actually this just reads like scientists being blind to their own biases. One of the guys heading the original study was Ancel Keys, the father of the lipid hypothesis.

enraged_camel 11y ago

Mainstream reports it that way because the general public has no appetite for the intricate details of scientific studies. The vast majority of people tend to look for quick fixes and easy changes, which is why they gravitate towards reporting that oversimplify scientific findings. And since the media wants/needs readers/clicks to stay in business...

twelvedogs 11y ago
i think it's mostly that most scientific studies have no clear outcomes, people want resolutions not "we did this study, it wasn't perfect but the findings seemed to point towards this effect and more better studies should be done in this area to back up this before we can say it probably does cause this effect" is not anything anyone who isn't a scientist would care about, especially since those further studies will very likely not happen

jdminhbg 11y ago

It's hard for the mainstream media to misrepresent a study that was suppressed.

dmix 11y ago
The solution is not specific to this study. It's explaining that there are no absolutes and rather presenting the results with probabilities. For example, making it clear that research has shown that it is probable that it might make you healthier but is not guaranteed, based on x number of studies in the last x years.
SapphireSun 11y ago
I'm quite surprised that large clinical studies funded by the government didn't require publication of the dataset within some window after the experiment completed. It seems that the new trend of preregistering clinical trials and recording hypotheses up front is only now starting to catch on.

SilasX 11y ago

Was the mainstream reporting responsible for the scientists that wanted the food pyramid plastered in every classroom? Or for all the scientists who refused to use their positions to say anything to the effect of, "our confidence in that model isn't high enough to turn it into textbook advice yet"?