6 ms·

I couldn't disagree more. With science so utterly serving corporate interests, the only information that has a possibility of being true, IMO, is anecdotal evi

I couldn't disagree more. With science so utterly serving corporate interests, the only information that has a possibility of being true, IMO, is anecdotal evidence. This person is applying the scientific method personally, and cautiously. And he is sharing his experience with you. Whereas science only pays lip service to the scientific method. Its only there to make money. If you are interested in what I'm saying, you want to look into how science is as I say, take a look at the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Fi...

jiggunjer 6y ago
There are so many flaws in your reasoning I don't even know where to begin. I guess ignorance really is bliss.
angrais 6y ago
This is quite disheartening to read. We do know that the OP did NOT apply the scientific method - just look at the estimated timeframes. Estimates are not science. Likewise, N=1 and sharing experience is not "science", particularly for public health issues. I'm not going to waste my own time arguing why you're wrong, but a TDLR is you are and frankly it's a shame to read. As an aside, you're correct in that reporting of research methods could be improved and there are issues of replication, but this is for many reasons. One of the less reported issues is money - that's not how research funding works. You're claiming science is flawed, then link to wiki - is that a joke? Are you a researcher?
- feralimal 6y ago
  Thanks for NOT taking the time to explain to me how I'm wrong. I just am wrong, right? So says the voice of science! (I couldn't have asked for a better example of how science pays lip service to the scientific method only!) I link to wiki, not because I think it is authoritative, far from it. Like the NYT, CNN, Guardian or BBC which deliver us our daily propaganda messages, wikipedia delivers us the historical narrative we are meant to accept. When they themselves say 70% science studies are unreproducible (ie lies) you know that we're in a world of BS! Science is busted, but I find that individuals are able to relay the truth more fairly and accurately.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Science is the testing of ideas. The reason N=1 isn’t science is there is no way to isolate what’s going on. If nothing else time is a factor which is always increasing for such cases and may represent the bodies ability to heal over time. The classic advice of take two Aspirin and call me in the morning is really equivalent to just wait a day, and you could substitute pray for an hour before bed. So, “shockingly”, if the advice is pray for an hour before bed it’s going to seemingly work for most things especially if told to repeat it and just pray harder. Except, again they could have said sing the national anthem before bed and that’s also effective as is doing most non strenuous activities. This is generally true if what’s being suggested has other effects achievable in other ways. If losing weight is beneficial then fasting will seem really helpful though other options for weight loss exist, those where not tested because again N=1.
    - feralimal 6y ago
      What does N=1 mean?
      - memling 6y ago
        the number of experiments. one challenge is distinguishing between actual effects and random chance. hence the need for replication.
        feralimal 6y ago
        Absolutely, replication repetition does help understand and draw out a hypothesis. But why does that mean that anecdotal evidence is invalid?
        Retric 6y ago
        N=1 means the sample size within an experiment. Combining several experiments might seem like it’s the same thing as one larger experiment, but biased sampling is a major issue. Let’s assume some Democrats go to trump rally’s for the experience. If you take say 100 people chosen randomly from a rally you could estimate how common that was. However, if you look at interviews of people at Trump rallies the interviewer may have been more or less likely to include such people. As such what your examining is people the interviewer found interesting who where also at a rally which is a very different group. The surest way to get sampling bias is to some other criteria after the initial selection that can exclude samples from your examination. This might be as obvious as people who hung up on political polling or it can happen before the selection process. Aka I want 1,000 random Americans very often excludes people living outside America at say embassy’s, the homeless, prisoners, children, etc depending on how people are selected. For a given experiment you could look at how people where selected, but when combining random interesting examples you have no idea what’s being excluded which is why their considered worthless.
creata 6y ago
> This person is applying the scientific method personally, and cautiously. How is she "applying the scientific method"? > science only pays lip service to the scientific method. Its only there to make money. This is a gross insult to the vast majority of scientists. > the only information that has a possibility of being true, IMO, is anecdotal evidence. Whatever problems scientists have with reproducibility, there can be zero expectation of reproducibility with anecdotes.
- feralimal 6y ago
  > This is a gross insult to the vast majority of scientists. Its not an insult. I'm happy to accept that most scientists are acting in good faith. As I'm happy to accept most google, apple, facebook developers do not think they are building the prison technology of the future. They simply don't have the bigger picture. Mind you, their jobs depend on not knowing that picture either. > Whatever problems scientists have with reproducibility, there can be zero expectation of reproducibility with anecdotes. Why? That's insane. If someone, in person, testifies to their personal experience, that it had an impact on their life, you would ignore that? Corporations pay billions for people to create any old crap if they think there's a market in it. That individual is offering up some personal information for no gain, just as a simple expression of the truth they have found. And you would ignore it? With the best intent, you need to take a look in the mirror and question whether you are a part of the problem. If you take the word of 'science' over an individual's open expression, you don't have authority over yourself as an individual. Science has authority over you. And, be honest, you don't even need them to provide evidence for you to accept whatever they state.
  - creata 6y ago
    > science only pays lip service to the scientific method… I'm happy to accept that most scientists are acting in good faith. Square these two sentences, because you can't accidentally "only pay lip service to the scientific method". Are you or aren't you claiming that scientists feign their rigor? > If someone, in person, testifies to their personal experience, that it had an impact on their life, you would ignore that? I would not ignore that. But what works for someone does not necessarily work for anyone else, or even for that same person but under different circumstances. That's why we need statistics and rigor in methods. > If you take the word of 'science' over an individual's open expression I do not. Contrary to what you say, both are often biased, both are often tools used to promote corporate and other agendas — especially anecdotes on social media sites (including HN!) by god-knows-who — and both are often wrong. But unlike your average anecdote-offerer, scientists test whether their results generalize at all, and take many measures to mitigate bias. Anecdotes are important, but at most, the truth they give you is "I did this and my situation improved". Actual research tends to say a lot more than that. > And, be honest, you don't even need them to provide evidence for you to accept whatever they state. I suggest that you stop such insinuation.
ganafagol 6y ago
You are confusing science with some aspects of academic culture. "Science" is not more after money than "music" or "sunshine" are. Science is the process of applying the scientific method to gain understanding. That would work in a money-less society just as much as they could enjoy music or sunshine. There is rightful critisism at how academia works, especially the areas where results are so directly applicable that real money is made depending on the outcome. There is a lot of money in pharmaceuticals, in fossil fuels and even economic theories. But the majority of scientific endeavor is being done in quiet corners of academic buildings, or have you ever heard about multi-billion dollar grants for research project in mathematical proof theory, ancient western roman history or butterfly species in rural kasachstan. This view of what "science" is similar to when people think that "sports" is just "football, baseball, soccer and basketball". Yes, there is a lot of money in those, but sports is much more than that. P.S.: DoreenMichele is a lady.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  P.S.: DoreenMichele is a lady. Googles lady: a woman of superior social position, especially one of noble birth. My maternal grandmother may have been a lady in that she was born into a low level German noble family that sold the title when they fell on hard times. I, however, am a dirt poor American woman who spent years homeless and not a woman of superior social position, especially one of noble birth. So I'm laughing about that framing, especially given how you have dogged me elsewhere in this discussion. But more to the point, there are plenty of comments here in this very discussion where people refer to me as "she." So it's not necessary to correct anyone in particular in order for people here to get the memo that I happen to have girl bits between my legs, not boy bits. As a general FYI to anyone who happens to be reading, I don't think it is a best practice to nitpick specific comments in this way. In fact if you care about gender equality, I think it is actively counterproductive. I mean if the goal is to virtue signal while actively undermining equality, hey, it's probably a Best Practice in that case. But if that's not the goal, here is some food for thought: https://witnesstodestruction.blogspot.com/p/it-seems-my-silence-was-heard.html https://witnesstodestruction.blogspot.com/p/it-seems-my-sile...
  - 6y ago

jiggunjer 6y ago

There are so many flaws in your reasoning I don't even know where to begin. I guess ignorance really is bliss.

angrais 6y ago

This is quite disheartening to read. We do know that the OP did NOT apply the scientific method - just look at the estimated timeframes. Estimates are not science. Likewise, N=1 and sharing experience is not "science", particularly for public health issues. I'm not going to waste my own time arguing why you're wrong, but a TDLR is you are and frankly it's a shame to read. As an aside, you're correct in that reporting of research methods could be improved and there are issues of replication, but this is for many reasons. One of the less reported issues is money - that's not how research funding works. You're claiming science is flawed, then link to wiki - is that a joke? Are you a researcher?

feralimal 6y ago
Thanks for NOT taking the time to explain to me how I'm wrong. I just am wrong, right? So says the voice of science! (I couldn't have asked for a better example of how science pays lip service to the scientific method only!) I link to wiki, not because I think it is authoritative, far from it. Like the NYT, CNN, Guardian or BBC which deliver us our daily propaganda messages, wikipedia delivers us the historical narrative we are meant to accept. When they themselves say 70% science studies are unreproducible (ie lies) you know that we're in a world of BS! Science is busted, but I find that individuals are able to relay the truth more fairly and accurately.
- Retric 6y ago
  Science is the testing of ideas. The reason N=1 isn’t science is there is no way to isolate what’s going on. If nothing else time is a factor which is always increasing for such cases and may represent the bodies ability to heal over time. The classic advice of take two Aspirin and call me in the morning is really equivalent to just wait a day, and you could substitute pray for an hour before bed. So, “shockingly”, if the advice is pray for an hour before bed it’s going to seemingly work for most things especially if told to repeat it and just pray harder. Except, again they could have said sing the national anthem before bed and that’s also effective as is doing most non strenuous activities. This is generally true if what’s being suggested has other effects achievable in other ways. If losing weight is beneficial then fasting will seem really helpful though other options for weight loss exist, those where not tested because again N=1.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    What does N=1 mean?
    - memling 6y ago
      the number of experiments. one challenge is distinguishing between actual effects and random chance. hence the need for replication.
      - feralimal 6y ago
        Absolutely, replication repetition does help understand and draw out a hypothesis. But why does that mean that anecdotal evidence is invalid?
        Retric 6y ago
        N=1 means the sample size within an experiment. Combining several experiments might seem like it’s the same thing as one larger experiment, but biased sampling is a major issue. Let’s assume some Democrats go to trump rally’s for the experience. If you take say 100 people chosen randomly from a rally you could estimate how common that was. However, if you look at interviews of people at Trump rallies the interviewer may have been more or less likely to include such people. As such what your examining is people the interviewer found interesting who where also at a rally which is a very different group. The surest way to get sampling bias is to some other criteria after the initial selection that can exclude samples from your examination. This might be as obvious as people who hung up on political polling or it can happen before the selection process. Aka I want 1,000 random Americans very often excludes people living outside America at say embassy’s, the homeless, prisoners, children, etc depending on how people are selected. For a given experiment you could look at how people where selected, but when combining random interesting examples you have no idea what’s being excluded which is why their considered worthless.

creata 6y ago

> This person is applying the scientific method personally, and cautiously. How is she "applying the scientific method"? > science only pays lip service to the scientific method. Its only there to make money. This is a gross insult to the vast majority of scientists. > the only information that has a possibility of being true, IMO, is anecdotal evidence. Whatever problems scientists have with reproducibility, there can be zero expectation of reproducibility with anecdotes.

feralimal 6y ago
> This is a gross insult to the vast majority of scientists. Its not an insult. I'm happy to accept that most scientists are acting in good faith. As I'm happy to accept most google, apple, facebook developers do not think they are building the prison technology of the future. They simply don't have the bigger picture. Mind you, their jobs depend on not knowing that picture either. > Whatever problems scientists have with reproducibility, there can be zero expectation of reproducibility with anecdotes. Why? That's insane. If someone, in person, testifies to their personal experience, that it had an impact on their life, you would ignore that? Corporations pay billions for people to create any old crap if they think there's a market in it. That individual is offering up some personal information for no gain, just as a simple expression of the truth they have found. And you would ignore it? With the best intent, you need to take a look in the mirror and question whether you are a part of the problem. If you take the word of 'science' over an individual's open expression, you don't have authority over yourself as an individual. Science has authority over you. And, be honest, you don't even need them to provide evidence for you to accept whatever they state.
- creata 6y ago
  > science only pays lip service to the scientific method… I'm happy to accept that most scientists are acting in good faith. Square these two sentences, because you can't accidentally "only pay lip service to the scientific method". Are you or aren't you claiming that scientists feign their rigor? > If someone, in person, testifies to their personal experience, that it had an impact on their life, you would ignore that? I would not ignore that. But what works for someone does not necessarily work for anyone else, or even for that same person but under different circumstances. That's why we need statistics and rigor in methods. > If you take the word of 'science' over an individual's open expression I do not. Contrary to what you say, both are often biased, both are often tools used to promote corporate and other agendas — especially anecdotes on social media sites (including HN!) by god-knows-who — and both are often wrong. But unlike your average anecdote-offerer, scientists test whether their results generalize at all, and take many measures to mitigate bias. Anecdotes are important, but at most, the truth they give you is "I did this and my situation improved". Actual research tends to say a lot more than that. > And, be honest, you don't even need them to provide evidence for you to accept whatever they state. I suggest that you stop such insinuation.

ganafagol 6y ago

You are confusing science with some aspects of academic culture. "Science" is not more after money than "music" or "sunshine" are. Science is the process of applying the scientific method to gain understanding. That would work in a money-less society just as much as they could enjoy music or sunshine. There is rightful critisism at how academia works, especially the areas where results are so directly applicable that real money is made depending on the outcome. There is a lot of money in pharmaceuticals, in fossil fuels and even economic theories. But the majority of scientific endeavor is being done in quiet corners of academic buildings, or have you ever heard about multi-billion dollar grants for research project in mathematical proof theory, ancient western roman history or butterfly species in rural kasachstan. This view of what "science" is similar to when people think that "sports" is just "football, baseball, soccer and basketball". Yes, there is a lot of money in those, but sports is much more than that. P.S.: DoreenMichele is a lady.

DoreenMichele 6y ago
P.S.: DoreenMichele is a lady. Googles lady: a woman of superior social position, especially one of noble birth. My maternal grandmother may have been a lady in that she was born into a low level German noble family that sold the title when they fell on hard times. I, however, am a dirt poor American woman who spent years homeless and not a woman of superior social position, especially one of noble birth. So I'm laughing about that framing, especially given how you have dogged me elsewhere in this discussion. But more to the point, there are plenty of comments here in this very discussion where people refer to me as "she." So it's not necessary to correct anyone in particular in order for people here to get the memo that I happen to have girl bits between my legs, not boy bits. As a general FYI to anyone who happens to be reading, I don't think it is a best practice to nitpick specific comments in this way. In fact if you care about gender equality, I think it is actively counterproductive. I mean if the goal is to virtue signal while actively undermining equality, hey, it's probably a Best Practice in that case. But if that's not the goal, here is some food for thought: https://witnesstodestruction.blogspot.com/p/it-seems-my-silence-was-heard.html https://witnesstodestruction.blogspot.com/p/it-seems-my-sile...
- 6y ago