9 ms·

I'm at the point in my life where I treat 99% of studies with a grain of salt. I've seen studies that we've held up for 45 years to be completely toppled. Even

I'm at the point in my life where I treat 99% of studies with a grain of salt. I've seen studies that we've held up for 45 years to be completely toppled. Even studies that are holding in the last 5 years where our current generation is "perfect" and doesn't make the same scientific blunders of yesteryear. Our stories in science classes of how "bad scientists" that ended up being right were killed is no different today. It's just that instead of the king calling for an execution our own subjects dismiss them. If you watch things carefully in the scientific world you'll notice that there are actually really just a couple people holding up claims and making millions of others follow suit. Even in the face of challenging data, we wait for the so called thought leaders to either embrace or reject the new information. If they reject it, so do the hordes. Yet how do we know these few are willing to take on the new information, and actually take it seriously, especially when so much money might be on the line for them. Humans keep saying they learn from their mistakes, but we don't as it always looks different. Instead of a king's desk it's now an iPad and online forum. It really takes generational shifts for our science to move. I think too that the reason pop-science and alternative medicine is so successful is because regular science is too quick to hold the wrong things up - they are holding up people not results. And that's our failure.

refurb 8y ago
You have to remember the impact that grant writing has on how scientific findings are shared. Unless the author "spices up" the science, there is a good chance they won't get another grant and their lab will close. Example: "Levels of plasticizers in urine across the US" - maybe you'll get another grant Just take your original research, add in a few references to crappy studies that show a "possible link" to diabetes "Plasticizer exposure possible link to diabetes epidemic" - oh, yeah, you'll get grant now I know this because I helped write grants.
losteric 8y ago
Your statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. If you watch things carefully in the scientific world, you'll notice every domain has hundreds or thousands of people actively researching in the field. Some individuals are on the cutting edge, they define what is worth researching next (usually by themselves), but the accepted knowledge is based on mountains of research from all over the world. There are no authority figures. Science is iterative refinement of our understanding of the world through consensus acceptance of research results. I mean, this sentence: > Yet how do we know these few are willing to take on the new information, and actually take it seriously, especially when so much money might be on the line for them. is outright hilarious, and depressing, for someone who's done research. Scientists are smart people that care about advancing the frontier of knowledge - revolutionizing a field of research is the most desirable outcome. There is no money behind defending the status quo, because that isn't even science. Science is the metaphorical tree of knowledge. A solid trunk made of facts like "2+2=4" and "Apples fall off trees", while the cutting edge is unproven branches near the top that may not survive the year... but everyone in the field knows and expects that. The scientific process underpins every aspect of our modern era. It's how we went from room-sized computers calculating projectile trajectories to smart phones that support multi-player online virtual reality... in a single generation. > I think too that the reason pop-science and alternative medicine is so successful is because regular science is too quick to hold the wrong things up - they are holding up people not results Theory 1: Millions of academics across the world are united in a global conspiracy to do bad science Theory 2: Public education has failed this generation of Americans, and now the free market is just exploiting ignorance with snake oil
- module0000 8y ago
  I don't know enough to ask the right question...but do you think there is any type of research being paid for with a specific outcome targeted? Not to break out my tinfoil hat, but the conspiracy theory part of me assumes that pharma/manufacturing companies with the most to lose, would be willing to part with large sums to skew research majorities in their favor. Like I said I'm mostly ignorant of that domain, and curious what more informed people would say on that topic.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Medical research is paid for by people that want a specific outcome. But, they also care about the truth as they don’t want drugs that kill people for example. Net result a small bias, but not the kind of conspiracy worth talking about.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Absolutely science for hire is a real thing and even unconscious bias is dangerous, but the scientific method is based on reproducibility and predictive power. Important results will get tested and picked apart and studied over and over. It might take time to arrive at a really solid conclusion, but the only way we have to fight bias and error is to repeatedly compare our ideas to reality. That’s all science is. In this case, it seems like a claim that most table salt contains micro plastics should not be a very hard result to refute or reproduce. Usually scientists will avoid making claims that they aren’t really sure of and are easy to disprove.
    - felix_nagaand 8y ago
      The scientific method has been compromised and the proof is in the pudding , so to speak. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
      - losteric 8y ago
        In specific fields that have always been regarded as less scientific (social sciences and pharmaceuticals).
Greenisus 8y ago
"I treat 99% of studies with a grain of salt" now with microplastics! :P (sorry, i couldn't help myself)
sizzle 8y ago
This makes me wonder what off the shelf products are disrupting our biochemical pathways and if we should assume everything has the ability to, from home improvement projects to inhaling particles in the air from smoggy city and vaping chemicals. Any thoughts? This stuff is terrifying to say the least...

refurb 8y ago

You have to remember the impact that grant writing has on how scientific findings are shared. Unless the author "spices up" the science, there is a good chance they won't get another grant and their lab will close. Example: "Levels of plasticizers in urine across the US" - maybe you'll get another grant Just take your original research, add in a few references to crappy studies that show a "possible link" to diabetes "Plasticizer exposure possible link to diabetes epidemic" - oh, yeah, you'll get grant now I know this because I helped write grants.

losteric 8y ago

Your statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. If you watch things carefully in the scientific world, you'll notice every domain has hundreds or thousands of people actively researching in the field. Some individuals are on the cutting edge, they define what is worth researching next (usually by themselves), but the accepted knowledge is based on mountains of research from all over the world. There are no authority figures. Science is iterative refinement of our understanding of the world through consensus acceptance of research results. I mean, this sentence: > Yet how do we know these few are willing to take on the new information, and actually take it seriously, especially when so much money might be on the line for them. is outright hilarious, and depressing, for someone who's done research. Scientists are smart people that care about advancing the frontier of knowledge - revolutionizing a field of research is the most desirable outcome. There is no money behind defending the status quo, because that isn't even science. Science is the metaphorical tree of knowledge. A solid trunk made of facts like "2+2=4" and "Apples fall off trees", while the cutting edge is unproven branches near the top that may not survive the year... but everyone in the field knows and expects that. The scientific process underpins every aspect of our modern era. It's how we went from room-sized computers calculating projectile trajectories to smart phones that support multi-player online virtual reality... in a single generation. > I think too that the reason pop-science and alternative medicine is so successful is because regular science is too quick to hold the wrong things up - they are holding up people not results Theory 1: Millions of academics across the world are united in a global conspiracy to do bad science Theory 2: Public education has failed this generation of Americans, and now the free market is just exploiting ignorance with snake oil

module0000 8y ago
I don't know enough to ask the right question...but do you think there is any type of research being paid for with a specific outcome targeted? Not to break out my tinfoil hat, but the conspiracy theory part of me assumes that pharma/manufacturing companies with the most to lose, would be willing to part with large sums to skew research majorities in their favor. Like I said I'm mostly ignorant of that domain, and curious what more informed people would say on that topic.
- Retric 8y ago
  Medical research is paid for by people that want a specific outcome. But, they also care about the truth as they don’t want drugs that kill people for example. Net result a small bias, but not the kind of conspiracy worth talking about.
- simonh 8y ago
  Absolutely science for hire is a real thing and even unconscious bias is dangerous, but the scientific method is based on reproducibility and predictive power. Important results will get tested and picked apart and studied over and over. It might take time to arrive at a really solid conclusion, but the only way we have to fight bias and error is to repeatedly compare our ideas to reality. That’s all science is. In this case, it seems like a claim that most table salt contains micro plastics should not be a very hard result to refute or reproduce. Usually scientists will avoid making claims that they aren’t really sure of and are easy to disprove.
  - felix_nagaand 8y ago
    The scientific method has been compromised and the proof is in the pudding , so to speak. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
    - losteric 8y ago
      In specific fields that have always been regarded as less scientific (social sciences and pharmaceuticals).

Greenisus 8y ago

"I treat 99% of studies with a grain of salt" now with microplastics! :P (sorry, i couldn't help myself)

sizzle 8y ago

This makes me wonder what off the shelf products are disrupting our biochemical pathways and if we should assume everything has the ability to, from home improvement projects to inhaling particles in the air from smoggy city and vaping chemicals. Any thoughts? This stuff is terrifying to say the least...