5 ms·
True, but there should be some rationale as to why they assume that normalization wrt the cofactors they've chosen are sufficient to provide for their conclusio
by reddytowns 10y ago
True, but there should be some rationale as to why they assume that normalization wrt the cofactors they've chosen are sufficient to provide for their conclusions.
Simply seemingly randomly choosing cofactors and then shrugging it off as good enough to draw conclusions from is sloppy. Typical, yes, but mean you shouldn't be skeptical of their conclusions, no.
- dpark 10y agoYour specific concern was about socioeconomic status and because they answered that you now call it a random cofactor. Come on. You're not giving meaningful criticism. You're just being negative.
- reddytowns 10y ago> Your specific concern was about socioeconomic status I never said that. Maybe you are attributing the original poster's statements to me? Quite the contrary, my concern is the knee jerk conclusions people draw from these studies, and the perceived value of these studies by society. How many of studies like these actually end up advancing science in a meaningful way? If down the road, this study led to the understanding of some mechanism that causes dementia, that could then be used to develop a treatment, I'd be all for it. But mostly, crap like this seems to be just crap. I'm not saying it's not valuable at all, but the importance is vastly overstated. Rather than working on hard problems, researchers do this because it's easy and it gets them publicity. The public then just eats it up, including on HN, without critical thinking. It just is so masturbatory and delusional for us as a society to waste time with this shit.