4 ms·

It has a relation to the ability of someone to actually conduct an experiment... Larger groups have more resources, from knowledge to experience to money. It i

by bllguo 9y ago

It has a relation to the ability of someone to actually conduct an experiment... Larger groups have more resources, from knowledge to experience to money. It is not an ad hominem fallacy. I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion.

athenot 9y ago
Louis Pasteur and Pierre & Marie Curie fit the description of "mom and pop research", as compared to today's labs, yet their findings are still valid.
- Sharlin 9y ago
  That was then, now is now. There are few low-hanging fruits left these days. Especially in a field where showing any effect practically requires a sample size of dozens to hundreds and an observation period of years to decades.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  That level is still somewhat prohibitive for a lot of folks. Schooling alone can cost quite a bit, and without this a lot of places won't take you seriously regardless of your self-study. This aspect alone makes the person unable to reach Pasteur or Curie's "mom and pop research" level. Not to mention supplies. I worked as a lab assistant for a dude studying the effects of zebra mussels in closed freshwater lake systems in Indiana (dams and whatnot, where the mussel would need to have been introduced to the lake). Microscopes capable of counting the young, ventilation hoods (for preservation chemicals), scales, and methods of disposing of biowaste from the traps for adults? Yeah, that's even more - and this dude had a pretty low budget. What he did have was the time to put into the research which is yet another thing that alludes folks. Some fields of study really needs better equipment than we were using - plus it has been 20 years since then. It isn't that the low-budget stuff or the "mom and pop research" is less valid or not good enough. It is that even that level is cost-prohibitive.
  - selectodude 9y ago
    Marie Curie died of acute radiation poisoning, so I guess it's just a matter of how little you're worried about the effects of what you're working with. :)
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      Well, that really depends on whether or not you know the effects of what you are working with. It is really easy to be careless with such things when folks don't really know the effects. Even when she died, she didn't say much about the radiation effects. Heck, we used xrays to fit shoes on people long after she died.[1] I'm sure part of that was humans being slow to regulate it, but still. Knowing that x or y substance is dangerous brings a different perspective, I think. By the time I worked with formaldehyde, we knew we needed some precautions. I also think it is wise to consider age and mental capacity: IF someone isn't old enough to have full adult rights (including drinking, warring, and renting cars) they probably shouldn't be able to decide to not be careful. But then again, by the time one is educated to today's standards, they are old enough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope
denzil_correa 9y ago
> I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion. Because the comment also mentioned this > And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology. The comment essentially means that peer reviewed scientific experimental results from mom & pop are untrustworthy over big companies.

by bllguo 9y ago

athenot 9y ago

Louis Pasteur and Pierre & Marie Curie fit the description of "mom and pop research", as compared to today's labs, yet their findings are still valid.

Sharlin 9y ago
That was then, now is now. There are few low-hanging fruits left these days. Especially in a field where showing any effect practically requires a sample size of dozens to hundreds and an observation period of years to decades.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
That level is still somewhat prohibitive for a lot of folks. Schooling alone can cost quite a bit, and without this a lot of places won't take you seriously regardless of your self-study. This aspect alone makes the person unable to reach Pasteur or Curie's "mom and pop research" level. Not to mention supplies. I worked as a lab assistant for a dude studying the effects of zebra mussels in closed freshwater lake systems in Indiana (dams and whatnot, where the mussel would need to have been introduced to the lake). Microscopes capable of counting the young, ventilation hoods (for preservation chemicals), scales, and methods of disposing of biowaste from the traps for adults? Yeah, that's even more - and this dude had a pretty low budget. What he did have was the time to put into the research which is yet another thing that alludes folks. Some fields of study really needs better equipment than we were using - plus it has been 20 years since then. It isn't that the low-budget stuff or the "mom and pop research" is less valid or not good enough. It is that even that level is cost-prohibitive.
- selectodude 9y ago
  Marie Curie died of acute radiation poisoning, so I guess it's just a matter of how little you're worried about the effects of what you're working with. :)
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Well, that really depends on whether or not you know the effects of what you are working with. It is really easy to be careless with such things when folks don't really know the effects. Even when she died, she didn't say much about the radiation effects. Heck, we used xrays to fit shoes on people long after she died.[1] I'm sure part of that was humans being slow to regulate it, but still. Knowing that x or y substance is dangerous brings a different perspective, I think. By the time I worked with formaldehyde, we knew we needed some precautions. I also think it is wise to consider age and mental capacity: IF someone isn't old enough to have full adult rights (including drinking, warring, and renting cars) they probably shouldn't be able to decide to not be careful. But then again, by the time one is educated to today's standards, they are old enough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope

denzil_correa 9y ago

> I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion. Because the comment also mentioned this > And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology. The comment essentially means that peer reviewed scientific experimental results from mom & pop are untrustworthy over big companies.