6 ms·

Why is it important that studies have shown a particular result?

by ksk 9y ago

bluGill 9y ago
Because only well designed studies can show a truth. It is obviously the case that when you drop a big rock and a little rock at the same time the big rock will hit the ground first. Because we have a study we know this to be false even though it is obvious.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  Well, that particular scenario is false only when there is no air resistance (nowhere on this planet?). More importantly, it wasn't just a "study" that figured out the law of gravitation.
  - dctoedt 9y ago
    > no air resistance (nowhere on this planet?) In 1971, Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott repeated the experiment on the lunar surface with a hammer and a feather. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_P... (includes a link to a video clip; jump to about 0:35).
    - Cyph0n 9y ago
      I am aware of that famous experiment on the moon. However, my point was that the law of gravitation was developed centuries before such an experiment could possibly be performed.
- ksk 9y ago
  I understand the thrust of your comment and generally agree with your broad sentiment. But, most scientific studies present a model that fits data. While you are right that they can show a truth, that is not their aim, and often they are contradicted with newer data and models. Studies are only valuable when they form a scientific consensus over repeated experiments or provide some predictive power that can be confirmed through other experiments. To use a studies as a prescriptive guide to base your life on, or change of habits is an error IMHO, and ironically, quite unscientific. I guess you could say its a pet peeve of mine. 9 times out of 10 when I investigate a "studies have shown" comment, it turns out to be half-true or based on weak science, or too new to be replicated by other scientists, or sometimes the context is completely different from its use in an argument.
- eeereerews 9y ago
  There was no such study. Galileo showed this was false with the following famous thought experiment: Suppose it were true. Join a heavy rock and a light rock by a cord and drop them from a tower. If the light rock falls slower, eventually the cord will be pulled taut and retard the fall of the heavier, so this system falls more slowly than the heavy rock alone. But the system is heavier than the heavy rock alone, so it should fall faster, a contradiction.
  - Thiez 9y ago
    And yet a human with a parachute falls more slowly than a human with a parachute. I remain unconvinced of this thought experiment...
    - vkou 9y ago
      We don't strap parachutes to people because we think that heavier objects fall faster then lighter ones.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    Maybe Galileo did not, but others have. The gold standard is a model that explains that behavior, and experimental studies that work as the model predicts. The model that big ricks fall faster makes sense, but it isn't backed by experiences. Many studies have seemed to show something but in fact the authors just didn't realize they had to control for something important (sometimes an accident, sometimes outright scientific fraud)
    - dctoedt 9y ago
      > Maybe Galileo did not, but others have. "The experiment did take place in Delft in 16th century the Netherlands, when the mathematician and physicist Simon Stevin and Jan Cornets de Groot (the father of Hugo de Groot) conducted the experiment from the top of the Nieuwe Kerk." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_P...
njarboe 9y ago
Some people feel that humans have evolved over millions of years to do well in hunter-gatherer tribes and we have not genetically adapted yet in 6,000? years of civilization. If we think returning some habits of hunter-gatherer tribes would be beneficial, then we need to know what they are/were and not just wild-ass guess based on the Nobel Savage myth.
- ksk 9y ago
  Right, its good to present a model of what their habits were, if that was your area of interest. To use them as a prescriptive guide to base your habits on, requires further explanation and reasoning.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Many of the habits of hunter-gatherers would likely be absolutely unacceptable in today's culture. They were likely violently clannish/racist, completely male-dominated, hierarchical based on physical strength and appearance, and believed in gods/supernatural phenomenon.
  - bjshepard 9y ago
    What evidence is there to suggest that this is the case? It seems, instead, that those behaviors arose at a later point -- you need a certain level of captivity to have institutions like the patriarchy, bands can't enforce coercive structures....
  - ambentzen 9y ago
    So basically they where American? You're right, absolutely unacceptable by modern standards. BTW, the first sentence is about 50% a joke.
  - gyrgtyn 9y ago
    You assumptions are completely backwards.
  - irrational 9y ago
    Wait... violently clannish? So... Democrats vs Republicans? Violently racist? I think I remember something about that from the recent news. Completely male-dominated. Lets see, how many politicians, movie directors, CEOs, etc. are filled by males? Hmmm. Hierarchical based of physical appearance? Um... calling all pop stars and Kardashians. Believe in God. Something like 80+% of Americans. I'm super confused on what part of this is supposed to be absolutely unacceptable in today's culture. You have some serious blinders on or an unbelievable amount of naivete if you believe that.

Why is it important that studies have shown a particular result?

by ksk 9y ago

Why is it important that studies have shown a particular result?

Because only well designed studies can show a truth. It is obviously the case that when you drop a big rock and a little rock at the same time the big rock will hit the ground first. Because we have a study we know this to be false even though it is obvious.

Cyph0n 9y ago
Well, that particular scenario is false only when there is no air resistance (nowhere on this planet?). More importantly, it wasn't just a "study" that figured out the law of gravitation.
- dctoedt 9y ago
  > no air resistance (nowhere on this planet?) In 1971, Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott repeated the experiment on the lunar surface with a hammer and a feather. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_P... (includes a link to a video clip; jump to about 0:35).
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    I am aware of that famous experiment on the moon. However, my point was that the law of gravitation was developed centuries before such an experiment could possibly be performed.
ksk 9y ago
I understand the thrust of your comment and generally agree with your broad sentiment. But, most scientific studies present a model that fits data. While you are right that they can show a truth, that is not their aim, and often they are contradicted with newer data and models. Studies are only valuable when they form a scientific consensus over repeated experiments or provide some predictive power that can be confirmed through other experiments. To use a studies as a prescriptive guide to base your life on, or change of habits is an error IMHO, and ironically, quite unscientific. I guess you could say its a pet peeve of mine. 9 times out of 10 when I investigate a "studies have shown" comment, it turns out to be half-true or based on weak science, or too new to be replicated by other scientists, or sometimes the context is completely different from its use in an argument.
eeereerews 9y ago
There was no such study. Galileo showed this was false with the following famous thought experiment: Suppose it were true. Join a heavy rock and a light rock by a cord and drop them from a tower. If the light rock falls slower, eventually the cord will be pulled taut and retard the fall of the heavier, so this system falls more slowly than the heavy rock alone. But the system is heavier than the heavy rock alone, so it should fall faster, a contradiction.
- Thiez 9y ago
  And yet a human with a parachute falls more slowly than a human with a parachute. I remain unconvinced of this thought experiment...
  - vkou 9y ago
    We don't strap parachutes to people because we think that heavier objects fall faster then lighter ones.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Maybe Galileo did not, but others have. The gold standard is a model that explains that behavior, and experimental studies that work as the model predicts. The model that big ricks fall faster makes sense, but it isn't backed by experiences. Many studies have seemed to show something but in fact the authors just didn't realize they had to control for something important (sometimes an accident, sometimes outright scientific fraud)
  - dctoedt 9y ago
    > Maybe Galileo did not, but others have. "The experiment did take place in Delft in 16th century the Netherlands, when the mathematician and physicist Simon Stevin and Jan Cornets de Groot (the father of Hugo de Groot) conducted the experiment from the top of the Nieuwe Kerk." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_P...

njarboe 9y ago

Some people feel that humans have evolved over millions of years to do well in hunter-gatherer tribes and we have not genetically adapted yet in 6,000? years of civilization. If we think returning some habits of hunter-gatherer tribes would be beneficial, then we need to know what they are/were and not just wild-ass guess based on the Nobel Savage myth.

ksk 9y ago
Right, its good to present a model of what their habits were, if that was your area of interest. To use them as a prescriptive guide to base your habits on, requires further explanation and reasoning.
ams6110 9y ago
Many of the habits of hunter-gatherers would likely be absolutely unacceptable in today's culture. They were likely violently clannish/racist, completely male-dominated, hierarchical based on physical strength and appearance, and believed in gods/supernatural phenomenon.
- bjshepard 9y ago
  What evidence is there to suggest that this is the case? It seems, instead, that those behaviors arose at a later point -- you need a certain level of captivity to have institutions like the patriarchy, bands can't enforce coercive structures....
- ambentzen 9y ago
  So basically they where American? You're right, absolutely unacceptable by modern standards. BTW, the first sentence is about 50% a joke.
- gyrgtyn 9y ago
  You assumptions are completely backwards.
- irrational 9y ago
  Wait... violently clannish? So... Democrats vs Republicans? Violently racist? I think I remember something about that from the recent news. Completely male-dominated. Lets see, how many politicians, movie directors, CEOs, etc. are filled by males? Hmmm. Hierarchical based of physical appearance? Um... calling all pop stars and Kardashians. Believe in God. Something like 80+% of Americans. I'm super confused on what part of this is supposed to be absolutely unacceptable in today's culture. You have some serious blinders on or an unbelievable amount of naivete if you believe that.