4 ms·

You're begging the question. My core point was that "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't "refute" anything but logical postulates---the problem with s

You're begging the question. My core point was that "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't "refute" anything but logical postulates---the problem with something that can be so dismissed isn't that it's logically flawed but that it isn't science. Which I think is closer to what Feynman was describing than what you're implying. When you say "science isn't supposed to be easy" (I think most people already know that, but thanks), you're supporting my position: saying "correlation is not causation" isn't helpful. In itself, it's either misleading or trivial. And it deserves a standard response: "Thanks, Professor. What's your experimental design to investigate that? Competing hypotheses? Evidence supporting your position?" Yes, science isn't supposed to be easy, and that applies to disputing theories and evidence, too. I have my own problems with the release in the OP, but are you seriously claiming that it's based on Cargo Cult Science? You know, or should know, that there's more than mere correlation in the evidence and theory around AD research community focus on plaques. You also know or should know that there is good research being done on competing theories---ones treating the plaques, perhaps not as epiphenomena, but as secondary to a more subtle primary mechanism. If you think that more research dollars should go to the second group (and I would likely agree), cool. But if you seriously think that the hypothesized connection between Aβ plaques and AD is based on an easily dismissed "logical error", you're not competent to participate in that discussion.

btilly 6y ago
The entire field of Metascience (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience for a basic introduction) exists to examine the question of whether people who think they are doing science are really doing Cargo Cult science. Their conclusion? Most ARE doing Cargo Cult Science. Particularly those working in psychology and medical research. Let that sink in. Because it really, really matters. And given that it is true, perhaps you should stop objecting to the characterization and start thinking about what would be required for that to no longer be true. Now you said, If you think that more research dollars should go to the second group (and I would likely agree), cool. Well, that is a mild version of what I am saying. I am saying that the decades long refusal of the field to fund or allow publication of any alternative lines of research is a genocidal crime. I mean that quite literally. They wasted billions of dollars entrusted to them and caused millions of unnecessary deaths. This is not to say that amyloid research should not have been pursued. It was the leading hypothesis for good reason. But doctors have learned the hard way the importance of giving both a diagnosis and a differential. And then to look for evidence for the differential. Researchers need to be better at doing the same thing. And as long as they are apathetic or, as you have been, openly hostile to it, they will continue doing Cargo Cult science. No matter how impressive the procedure looks, they are failing to do the basic things that are likely to make it work.
- ajarmst 6y ago
  Straw man. I made no assertion about the the prevalence of cargo cult science in Medicine or any other field. I, too, have read Ioannidis. And Smolin. And Goldacre. And Kuhn. And Popper(well, some Popper. His writing is pretty dense.) Hell, I've even read Robert Whitaker. My point continues to be that mere use of correlation as evidence of cum hoc ergo pro is neither necessary nor sufficient for a charge of bad (or cargo cult) science because cum hoc ergo pro is a logical fallacy. Your reference to Metascience is a red herring. Ionnides didn't conclude that basic logic errors were the problem: his focus was on reproducibility and statistical errors as well as problems in experimental design (probably publication of negative results as well, I can't remember). Further, 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False' was published fifteen years ago. It's mainstream science now, and researchers are entirely aware of it. Feel free to charge (with evidence) that it's being ignored in experimental design, but it's certainly neither controversial nor obscure. It shows up in High School science curricula. Hell, I've used it in freshman college maths. Feynman and Ionnides focus on experimental design, evidence selection, researcher bias or incompetence in selecting results, and publication of results. They don't say that you can't use correlation as evidence: the problem is not that there's too much evidence being accepted, but that there's too little. Had you opened with - "they're ignoring evidence they're wrong" or - "this paper has twice failed in replication attempts" or - "the study has too few subjects / no control group / too much noise to accurately measure these weak results" or even went all Smolin with - "the entire research program is based on inadequate and uncritical investigations into a poorly defined and contradictorily applied hypothesis", I'd be merrily mashing the up arrow. But you opened with "The amyloid beta hypothesis is the result of a failure to understand that correlation does not imply causation." You're asserting that hundreds of thousands of qualified medical researchers don't understand a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Somewhat amusingly, the published results that prompted this particular discussion is good evidence against the plaque hypothesis (well, it will be after replication and a supporting metastudy). From a well-regarded researcher. I guess they're not all participating in the genocide. I'm not "hostile" to the idea that AD research might have been misguided or even criminally wasteful of resources. I'm hostile to the assertion that the very close correlation between plaques and AD should not be guiding research and that it is clearly not only wrong but can be easily so demonstrated.

btilly 6y ago

The entire field of Metascience (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience for a basic introduction) exists to examine the question of whether people who think they are doing science are really doing Cargo Cult science. Their conclusion? Most ARE doing Cargo Cult Science. Particularly those working in psychology and medical research. Let that sink in. Because it really, really matters. And given that it is true, perhaps you should stop objecting to the characterization and start thinking about what would be required for that to no longer be true. Now you said, If you think that more research dollars should go to the second group (and I would likely agree), cool. Well, that is a mild version of what I am saying. I am saying that the decades long refusal of the field to fund or allow publication of any alternative lines of research is a genocidal crime. I mean that quite literally. They wasted billions of dollars entrusted to them and caused millions of unnecessary deaths. This is not to say that amyloid research should not have been pursued. It was the leading hypothesis for good reason. But doctors have learned the hard way the importance of giving both a diagnosis and a differential. And then to look for evidence for the differential. Researchers need to be better at doing the same thing. And as long as they are apathetic or, as you have been, openly hostile to it, they will continue doing Cargo Cult science. No matter how impressive the procedure looks, they are failing to do the basic things that are likely to make it work.

ajarmst 6y ago
Straw man. I made no assertion about the the prevalence of cargo cult science in Medicine or any other field. I, too, have read Ioannidis. And Smolin. And Goldacre. And Kuhn. And Popper(well, some Popper. His writing is pretty dense.) Hell, I've even read Robert Whitaker. My point continues to be that mere use of correlation as evidence of cum hoc ergo pro is neither necessary nor sufficient for a charge of bad (or cargo cult) science because cum hoc ergo pro is a logical fallacy. Your reference to Metascience is a red herring. Ionnides didn't conclude that basic logic errors were the problem: his focus was on reproducibility and statistical errors as well as problems in experimental design (probably publication of negative results as well, I can't remember). Further, 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False' was published fifteen years ago. It's mainstream science now, and researchers are entirely aware of it. Feel free to charge (with evidence) that it's being ignored in experimental design, but it's certainly neither controversial nor obscure. It shows up in High School science curricula. Hell, I've used it in freshman college maths. Feynman and Ionnides focus on experimental design, evidence selection, researcher bias or incompetence in selecting results, and publication of results. They don't say that you can't use correlation as evidence: the problem is not that there's too much evidence being accepted, but that there's too little. Had you opened with - "they're ignoring evidence they're wrong" or - "this paper has twice failed in replication attempts" or - "the study has too few subjects / no control group / too much noise to accurately measure these weak results" or even went all Smolin with - "the entire research program is based on inadequate and uncritical investigations into a poorly defined and contradictorily applied hypothesis", I'd be merrily mashing the up arrow. But you opened with "The amyloid beta hypothesis is the result of a failure to understand that correlation does not imply causation." You're asserting that hundreds of thousands of qualified medical researchers don't understand a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Somewhat amusingly, the published results that prompted this particular discussion is good evidence against the plaque hypothesis (well, it will be after replication and a supporting metastudy). From a well-regarded researcher. I guess they're not all participating in the genocide. I'm not "hostile" to the idea that AD research might have been misguided or even criminally wasteful of resources. I'm hostile to the assertion that the very close correlation between plaques and AD should not be guiding research and that it is clearly not only wrong but can be easily so demonstrated.