6 ms·

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 scie

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.
        feralimal 6y ago
        Thanks. But are you doing all that personally? Do you have time? Probably not - I certainly I'm not polling hundreds of people over each minutaie in my life. So, it is likely that neither of us have done the work personally. The difference is that I distrust the output of science by default. I understand that it is an industry and I'm deeply suspicious of all its pronouncements. I'm on the lookout for the monetary upside, and what isn't being discussed. I love the scientific method, but it is not the be all and end all. What q Could a drug company ever say: "Guys, we've done the testing, and the best thing if you have XXX disease is NOT a drug. No, the best thing is to go on a juice diet and prolonged fasting."? It could not. With individuals, I am more open. If you can speak to someone, eg Doreen in this case has offered her perspective, that counts for far more with me. I know most individuals are happy to offer help and their perspective out of natural good will. Mostly individuals are trustworthy. The system that individuals are forced to engage with however is degenerative, and system/corporate/governmental outputs are propagandistic and in the service of the system itself.

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.
        feralimal 6y ago
        Thanks. But are you doing all that personally? Do you have time? Probably not - I certainly I'm not polling hundreds of people over each minutaie in my life. So, it is likely that neither of us have done the work personally. The difference is that I distrust the output of science by default. I understand that it is an industry and I'm deeply suspicious of all its pronouncements. I'm on the lookout for the monetary upside, and what isn't being discussed. I love the scientific method, but it is not the be all and end all. What q Could a drug company ever say: "Guys, we've done the testing, and the best thing if you have XXX disease is NOT a drug. No, the best thing is to go on a juice diet and prolonged fasting."? It could not. With individuals, I am more open. If you can speak to someone, eg Doreen in this case has offered her perspective, that counts for far more with me. I know most individuals are happy to offer help and their perspective out of natural good will. Mostly individuals are trustworthy. The system that individuals are forced to engage with however is degenerative, and system/corporate/governmental outputs are propagandistic and in the service of the system itself.