5 ms·

"is based on a single study with 12 cows." Its not - most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. A quick scho

"is based on a single study with 12 cows." Its not - most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. A quick scholar search shows numerous studies broadly agreeing with the one featured here, including the seaweeds effects on sheep digestion and microbial and metabolic details: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=asparagopsis+methane https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=asparagopsis+methane

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
MiroF 7y ago
> most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. I thought I was the only one who noticed this! Seems very popular and common in forums like HN and Reddit, but less so elsewhere.
- TravHatesMe 7y ago
  I would prefer being skeptical instead of blindly accepting things. This behavior will instigate another to provide evidence or a counter-argument. This makes for great discussion, in most cases I think it is healthy.
  - mikelyons 7y ago
    It's easy for what passes for a skeptical attitude to actually _be_ a blind acceptance. Whether of another implicit and unexamined paradigm that one is operating from, or just a dissonance-triggered knee-jerk. It's a very sneaky self-deception, false skepticism.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    Aren't you just blindly accepting the skeptical response? What did you learn from this great conversation: OP: This study has never been reproduced!!!! Response: Uh, yes it has.
    - TravHatesMe 7y ago
      OP's comment casts doubt on the validity of the article's conclusions. Maybe OP didn't look into it as much as others. The response to OP reaffirms the validity and sways my skeptical mind. I enjoyed both comments; indeed good discussion.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
    I think that's a hopeful but naive take. So often, it's just dismissive hot takes with a sprinkling of jargon and absolutely no substance whatsoever. Substantive critique is fairly rare.
- mikelyons 7y ago
  It's more of an "intellectually lazy ego indulgence" than true skepticism. It's a false skepticism. Not that there's anything wrong with it, it's part of being human. I'm often guilty of it and I don't think there are people who aren't. Getting a really rich definition of skepticism helped me make what I came to understand is a very important distinction. Link, In case anybody is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kzZdps9PG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kzZdps9PG4
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
  I love when you get people complaining about sample sizes, yet the effect is huge and significance levels are minuscule. Yes, significance testing has some flaws, but they mostly show up at the margins, and complaining about sample sizes has nothing to do with that anyway.
lubesGordi 7y ago
Its not about skeptical remarks being poorly informed. It's about taking a thought that could occur to anyone thinking about the issue at hand without having all the information, presenting it, and having an informed reply. It's part of the dialog, and shouldn't be demonized!
- TravHatesMe 7y ago
  Absolutely agree with you. Critical thinking is a good thing.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

MiroF 7y ago

> most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. I thought I was the only one who noticed this! Seems very popular and common in forums like HN and Reddit, but less so elsewhere.

TravHatesMe 7y ago
I would prefer being skeptical instead of blindly accepting things. This behavior will instigate another to provide evidence or a counter-argument. This makes for great discussion, in most cases I think it is healthy.
- mikelyons 7y ago
  It's easy for what passes for a skeptical attitude to actually _be_ a blind acceptance. Whether of another implicit and unexamined paradigm that one is operating from, or just a dissonance-triggered knee-jerk. It's a very sneaky self-deception, false skepticism.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Aren't you just blindly accepting the skeptical response? What did you learn from this great conversation: OP: This study has never been reproduced!!!! Response: Uh, yes it has.
  - TravHatesMe 7y ago
    OP's comment casts doubt on the validity of the article's conclusions. Maybe OP didn't look into it as much as others. The response to OP reaffirms the validity and sways my skeptical mind. I enjoyed both comments; indeed good discussion.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
  I think that's a hopeful but naive take. So often, it's just dismissive hot takes with a sprinkling of jargon and absolutely no substance whatsoever. Substantive critique is fairly rare.
mikelyons 7y ago
It's more of an "intellectually lazy ego indulgence" than true skepticism. It's a false skepticism. Not that there's anything wrong with it, it's part of being human. I'm often guilty of it and I don't think there are people who aren't. Getting a really rich definition of skepticism helped me make what I came to understand is a very important distinction. Link, In case anybody is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kzZdps9PG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kzZdps9PG4
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
I love when you get people complaining about sample sizes, yet the effect is huge and significance levels are minuscule. Yes, significance testing has some flaws, but they mostly show up at the margins, and complaining about sample sizes has nothing to do with that anyway.

lubesGordi 7y ago

Its not about skeptical remarks being poorly informed. It's about taking a thought that could occur to anyone thinking about the issue at hand without having all the information, presenting it, and having an informed reply. It's part of the dialog, and shouldn't be demonized!

TravHatesMe 7y ago
Absolutely agree with you. Critical thinking is a good thing.