4 ms·

Let’s say I think about it for a while and decide that C++ is more prone to bugs than other languages. If I present that opinion as, “Study finds C++ more pron

Let’s say I think about it for a while and decide that C++ is more prone to bugs than other languages. If I present that opinion as, “Study finds C++ more prone to bugs than other languages,” you don’t find it misleading? I think most people assume the word “study” indicates something is backed by a rigorous method of research, like the scientific method. You can’t just make an opinion and then claim it’s a study.

shkkmo 7y ago
I would say that "C++ is more prone to bugs than other languages" is a quantitative claim and it is difficult to back up a quantitative claim without quantitative evidence. I don't think it calling itself a "study" should have any bearing on your desire to see that quantitative evidence or on your general epistemic stance towards the claims. > I think most people assume the word “study” indicates something is backed by a rigorous method of research, like the scientific method. You can’t just make an opinion and then claim it’s a study. I get that there may be some connotation in the context of headlines that empirical evidence gathering was involved. Does that make it ludicrous to use the term? Not at all. The paper and the article are both clear about what was involved in the study. I really don't see how there is a "big problem" here (especially compared to issues of reproducibility in studies that are back by empirical data.) My big concern is the assertions that papers like this are not part of a "rigorous method of research, like the scientific method" completely discount the important role that such papers play in drawing the solid conclusions from data.
candiodari 7y ago
This is not the same, nor does anyone claim it's the same. People just see "science" and think physics, which is only one standard of science. However physics (70%-80% of it at least, big exceptions are theoretical physics and philosophy of physics) is an empirical science, psychology and psychiatry is not. Or to put it in more clear terms, if proof is how you think of science, then none of the sciences other than physics, chemistry and math are science at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_academic_disciplines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_academic_discipline... Psychology (and psychiatry) fall under the social sciences. These do not claim to be value-free. In other words, they draw conclusions because people feel those conclusions to be "needed", or socially relevant. Not even valid, in terms of truth versus fiction. The problem is that with psychiatry you have quite a few studies that point out it's not empirically valid at all: 1) diagnoses of mental illness are made on factors other than the patient or the symptoms: (for example they are made on available space, how "necessary" bed & meals are for the patient, whether the referring person needs them to be admitted, ...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment Worse, the same goes for involuntary mental treatment and even youth care. All of those interventions, including everything from limiting study choice to locking a kid up for 2 decades, are based on whether a social worker considers such a thing socially needed. These determinations are made not on the child or person, but on the perceived need from the people asking for such a "diagnosis" and intervention. And that's the normal practice, not cases of abuse (which happen regularly, because of course admitting a patient pays, as well as the need for validation these people have) So, for instance, and as shown in the experiment, psychiatrists will lock up, place in isolation, medicate and use violence against patients to get them to admit/confess to a diagnosis by an earlier mental health professional. This is the normal practice, and not exceptional. 2) mental health treatment does not actually make patients better, or at least, despite 2 centuries of searching, there is no empirical or statistical evidence beyond "professionals say it works". Or, more dramatically: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/esmewwang/psychiatric-hospital-inpatient-collected-schizophrenias https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/esmewwang/psychiatric-h... 2b) furthermore effectiveness studies keep, again and again, pointing out that only factors that have nothing to do with mental health theories and nothing to do with mental health treatment matter for the number of afflicted. Chiefly it is pointed out that mental health clinics tend to get filled. So the number of afflicted is determined by supply of care rather than by patient demand. Second studies keep pointing out that the relationship with carers matters for outcomes, and that specifically treatment, medicine, duration, ... doesn't matter at all. Third studies keep pointing out that "care" is used as a coercive social control tool Fourth when it comes to severity of problems the economic situation matters a lot more than anything the professionals do or know. 3) there are many abuses of the system by mental health professionals, and these have persisted over centuries "historical" (which should not be taken as "past" in most cases) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Days_in_a_Mad-House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Days_in_a_Mad-House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_... https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3016435/angels-and-demons-police-italy-arrest-18-accused-brainwashing https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3016435/angel... https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48367071 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48367071 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/norways_hidden_scandal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/norways_hidden_s... (pedofile using state power to kidnap children and place them ... with himself) https://www.commissiegeweldjeugdzorg.nl/onderzoek/english/ https://www.commissiegeweldjeugdzorg.nl/onderzoek/english/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49320260 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49320260 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/an-anguished-dutch-teenager-who-was-raped-child-is-euthanized-her-request/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/an-anguishe... ... 4) truth be told there are many abuses of the system by "patients". Just visit a mental health facility or psychiatrist and ask about the homeless that want to be taken "into care". I guarantee details will be forthcoming.
- wahern 7y ago
  > 2) mental health treatment does not actually make patients better, or at least, despite 2 centuries of searching, there is no empirical or statistical evidence beyond "professionals say it works". Here's a randomized control trial that says otherwise: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312318/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312318/ According to you it would be mere coincidence that lithium appears to work so well to treat the misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder.
  - candiodari 7y ago
    Like any other sedative, lithium, yes, prevents mood swings and "makes you happy". I've personally verified Belgian beer does the same last friday ... Is this a joke ? Of course that's what it does. Does it help against the actual problem ? No.

shkkmo 7y ago

I would say that "C++ is more prone to bugs than other languages" is a quantitative claim and it is difficult to back up a quantitative claim without quantitative evidence. I don't think it calling itself a "study" should have any bearing on your desire to see that quantitative evidence or on your general epistemic stance towards the claims. > I think most people assume the word “study” indicates something is backed by a rigorous method of research, like the scientific method. You can’t just make an opinion and then claim it’s a study. I get that there may be some connotation in the context of headlines that empirical evidence gathering was involved. Does that make it ludicrous to use the term? Not at all. The paper and the article are both clear about what was involved in the study. I really don't see how there is a "big problem" here (especially compared to issues of reproducibility in studies that are back by empirical data.) My big concern is the assertions that papers like this are not part of a "rigorous method of research, like the scientific method" completely discount the important role that such papers play in drawing the solid conclusions from data.

candiodari 7y ago

This is not the same, nor does anyone claim it's the same. People just see "science" and think physics, which is only one standard of science. However physics (70%-80% of it at least, big exceptions are theoretical physics and philosophy of physics) is an empirical science, psychology and psychiatry is not. Or to put it in more clear terms, if proof is how you think of science, then none of the sciences other than physics, chemistry and math are science at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_academic_disciplines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_academic_discipline... Psychology (and psychiatry) fall under the social sciences. These do not claim to be value-free. In other words, they draw conclusions because people feel those conclusions to be "needed", or socially relevant. Not even valid, in terms of truth versus fiction. The problem is that with psychiatry you have quite a few studies that point out it's not empirically valid at all: 1) diagnoses of mental illness are made on factors other than the patient or the symptoms: (for example they are made on available space, how "necessary" bed & meals are for the patient, whether the referring person needs them to be admitted, ...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment Worse, the same goes for involuntary mental treatment and even youth care. All of those interventions, including everything from limiting study choice to locking a kid up for 2 decades, are based on whether a social worker considers such a thing socially needed. These determinations are made not on the child or person, but on the perceived need from the people asking for such a "diagnosis" and intervention. And that's the normal practice, not cases of abuse (which happen regularly, because of course admitting a patient pays, as well as the need for validation these people have) So, for instance, and as shown in the experiment, psychiatrists will lock up, place in isolation, medicate and use violence against patients to get them to admit/confess to a diagnosis by an earlier mental health professional. This is the normal practice, and not exceptional. 2) mental health treatment does not actually make patients better, or at least, despite 2 centuries of searching, there is no empirical or statistical evidence beyond "professionals say it works". Or, more dramatically: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/esmewwang/psychiatric-hospital-inpatient-collected-schizophrenias https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/esmewwang/psychiatric-h... 2b) furthermore effectiveness studies keep, again and again, pointing out that only factors that have nothing to do with mental health theories and nothing to do with mental health treatment matter for the number of afflicted. Chiefly it is pointed out that mental health clinics tend to get filled. So the number of afflicted is determined by supply of care rather than by patient demand. Second studies keep pointing out that the relationship with carers matters for outcomes, and that specifically treatment, medicine, duration, ... doesn't matter at all. Third studies keep pointing out that "care" is used as a coercive social control tool Fourth when it comes to severity of problems the economic situation matters a lot more than anything the professionals do or know. 3) there are many abuses of the system by mental health professionals, and these have persisted over centuries "historical" (which should not be taken as "past" in most cases) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Days_in_a_Mad-House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Days_in_a_Mad-House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_... https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3016435/angels-and-demons-police-italy-arrest-18-accused-brainwashing https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3016435/angel... https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48367071 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48367071 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/norways_hidden_scandal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/norways_hidden_s... (pedofile using state power to kidnap children and place them ... with himself) https://www.commissiegeweldjeugdzorg.nl/onderzoek/english/ https://www.commissiegeweldjeugdzorg.nl/onderzoek/english/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49320260 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49320260 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/an-anguished-dutch-teenager-who-was-raped-child-is-euthanized-her-request/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/an-anguishe... ... 4) truth be told there are many abuses of the system by "patients". Just visit a mental health facility or psychiatrist and ask about the homeless that want to be taken "into care". I guarantee details will be forthcoming.

wahern 7y ago
> 2) mental health treatment does not actually make patients better, or at least, despite 2 centuries of searching, there is no empirical or statistical evidence beyond "professionals say it works". Here's a randomized control trial that says otherwise: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312318/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312318/ According to you it would be mere coincidence that lithium appears to work so well to treat the misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder.
- candiodari 7y ago
  Like any other sedative, lithium, yes, prevents mood swings and "makes you happy". I've personally verified Belgian beer does the same last friday ... Is this a joke ? Of course that's what it does. Does it help against the actual problem ? No.