4 ms·

> This person is applying the scientific method personally, and cautiously. How is she "applying the scientific method"? > science only pays lip service to th

by 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.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    > 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? You can do everything right, follow the scientific method, but be answering the wrong question. Eg, asking which of these 3 drugs is best for such and such a disease. Ie you are excluding fasting or other alternatives. You will build up a load of data on those 3 drugs perhaps, but fasting might be best of all. You just don't know. But a scientist will say that there is no evidence to support fasting. So the scientific method has studiously ignored inconvenient (unmarketable) options. So is the scientist giving the best information here? Are his/her answers biased? > > 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. If you skim articles, watch TV, and don't do research to satisfy yourself, you don't have evidence. You don't know. You may think you know. And thinking you know, when you don't, is dangerous. This is a point worth considering - in my opinion it covers 99.99% of what passes for knowledge. You may find that you have lots of belief and very little actual knowledge just a compound and rigid set of mutually reinforcing beliefs. (This is akin to religion in fact). Which is at least an honest assessment of what most 'scientists' are practising! They believe that there is a body of evidence that supports what they think, and can take that for granted. No one is checking that the foundations are as solid as they believe! And that is the point of education.
    - creata 6y ago
      > So is the scientist giving the best information here? Whatever the case, the scientist is not "only paying lip service to the scientific method" in such a scenario. The scientist set out to answer a question, and they answered it. If you draw other conclusions from their work, it might be their fault, but only if they claimed that they were answering more than they actually did answer. And in practice, scientists do evaluate fasting and such, because they're not just in it for the money. I mean, the very article corresponding to this comment section says: > There has been over 100 years of research looking at the role of calorie restriction in relation to the possibility of prolonging life. But of course, you can come up with other examples of scientists thinking up false dichotomies, so that's neither here nor there. All I want to say is that it's really obvious that scientists don't evaluate all the options, that they're often biased, and that they often commit errors of logic. But concluding from this that "the only information that has a possibility of being true, IMO, is anecdotal evidence" is downright insane. > No one is checking that the foundations are as solid as they believe! You act like you're an expert on the scientific process and how scientists spend their time, but I very much doubt you do. Anyway, I'm done here, talking to you isn't exactly fun or eye-opening.

by creata 6y ago

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.
- feralimal 6y ago
  > 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? You can do everything right, follow the scientific method, but be answering the wrong question. Eg, asking which of these 3 drugs is best for such and such a disease. Ie you are excluding fasting or other alternatives. You will build up a load of data on those 3 drugs perhaps, but fasting might be best of all. You just don't know. But a scientist will say that there is no evidence to support fasting. So the scientific method has studiously ignored inconvenient (unmarketable) options. So is the scientist giving the best information here? Are his/her answers biased? > > 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. If you skim articles, watch TV, and don't do research to satisfy yourself, you don't have evidence. You don't know. You may think you know. And thinking you know, when you don't, is dangerous. This is a point worth considering - in my opinion it covers 99.99% of what passes for knowledge. You may find that you have lots of belief and very little actual knowledge just a compound and rigid set of mutually reinforcing beliefs. (This is akin to religion in fact). Which is at least an honest assessment of what most 'scientists' are practising! They believe that there is a body of evidence that supports what they think, and can take that for granted. No one is checking that the foundations are as solid as they believe! And that is the point of education.
  - creata 6y ago
    > So is the scientist giving the best information here? Whatever the case, the scientist is not "only paying lip service to the scientific method" in such a scenario. The scientist set out to answer a question, and they answered it. If you draw other conclusions from their work, it might be their fault, but only if they claimed that they were answering more than they actually did answer. And in practice, scientists do evaluate fasting and such, because they're not just in it for the money. I mean, the very article corresponding to this comment section says: > There has been over 100 years of research looking at the role of calorie restriction in relation to the possibility of prolonging life. But of course, you can come up with other examples of scientists thinking up false dichotomies, so that's neither here nor there. All I want to say is that it's really obvious that scientists don't evaluate all the options, that they're often biased, and that they often commit errors of logic. But concluding from this that "the only information that has a possibility of being true, IMO, is anecdotal evidence" is downright insane. > No one is checking that the foundations are as solid as they believe! You act like you're an expert on the scientific process and how scientists spend their time, but I very much doubt you do. Anyway, I'm done here, talking to you isn't exactly fun or eye-opening.