6 ms·

Hacker news is one of the places where I often value the comments more than the linked articles themselves. But wow. This thread is full of pseudo-science type

Hacker news is one of the places where I often value the comments more than the linked articles themselves. But wow. This thread is full of pseudo-science type reasoning. Let’s be careful. We have science and the scientific methods to investigate things like this. It’s worked very well for us for a long time, let’s try to have som faith in it.

ngngngng 6y ago
Isn't all science "pseudo-science type reasoning" before someone goes out and proves/disproves it? I don't see a problem with some curious conversation.
- tkzed49 6y ago
  there's nothing wrong with sharing anecdotes, but it's not science until someone actually does the "proving/disproving" in a convincing way.
  - surfsvammel 6y ago
    Well, it might be wrong to share anecdotes, IMO. We should always be careful when communicating online as we don’t know who we might be communicating with. Someone might take those anecdotes as proof that something works, and might go out and do something that might not be safe.
- surfsvammel 6y ago
  No. There is difference. Science works by making observations, making hypothesis and then testing those. The result is some kind of knowledge which is useful for making predictions. Reasoning in this world is based on that. We only make predictions when something is tested, established or pure fact. What I mean by pseudo-science type reasoning is; not based on any fact, nor any position which has been tested (scientifically), nor any established knowledge. Instead it is often based on anecdotes or the reason is motivated or heavily biased. Frankly, I don’t care too much about bad reasoning. But when there is risk that it might be understood as recommendations, and it might be unsafe for someone reading it, then I think it’s dangerous.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
neuronic 6y ago
I mean, full agreement here but the... that science should be done and not financially starved because the outcome serves no long-term financial interests.
npsimons 6y ago
> Hacker news is one of the places where I often value the comments more than the linked articles themselves. But wow. This thread is full of pseudo-science type reasoning. It's been this way for years. HN is really quite good when it comes to things in their wheelhouse (software, tech companies), but hilariously bad about diet and related issues, I suspect because it's a sore spot for many and they are in denial.
- Lopiolis 6y ago
  Well, more than diet, anything that isn't technical in nature. Economics, (geo-)politics, biology (particularly humans), etc. There's a lot of that fallacy around here that being knowledgeable/smart in one area means that obviously it transfers to every other field.
  - npsimons 6y ago
    I just remember a while back fecal transplants came up here (and other forums I frequent) as a "treatment" for obesity, as they found different gut flora between obese and healthy weight populations. So many people were thinking they could get a fecal transplant to cure their obesity, not stopping to ask maybe what was causing gut flora to be different between obese and healthy weight populations. And as for diet, the studies are out there. I'm no expert, but I listen to people who could credibly be argued are (as one example Dr. Greger who reads tons of studies and cites them in his videos), and typically their advice comes down to common wisdom that people just don't want to hear: eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
- pas 6y ago
  Diet is one of the things that's absolutely full of bad science, because it's hard to study. So claiming HN is somehow in denial implies there's an amazing scientific consensus. (Also even if we take the best studies at face value the relative risk differences are ridiculously low between diets. [At least as far as I know.])
  - npsimons 6y ago
m463 6y ago
I'm from the internet and I might not actually have a science degree, but I do have a Ph.D. in the thousands of beneficial uses of hemp.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hinkley 6y ago
The scientific method works at a very slow pace and goes even slower when public opinion is against an idea. We have a lot of known unknowns about gut biota. And a lot of people whose gut biota are literally killing them. And a lot of friends and family of those people. They are of course going to be frustrated. Especially when they look at how long those question marks have existed. Get to it already! Feyman’s wife died while the antibiotic that saved people like her was in drug trials. Can you imagine being that close to a cure and missing it? When I read about people dying of infections mid century I have to pull up my calendar and just pity them a little bit more.
- surfsvammel 6y ago
  I am not sure what you mean by ‘the scientific method is slow’. Compared to what, really? Just winging it? But I think I see what you mean. And yes, science do take time. From discoveries in basic science, all the way to clinical trials and then treatment approval, there is significant lead time. And, of course, it is especially sad for those who suffer when treatment seem to be just around the corner. But the alternative is surely worse; to not test, to not review or to base treatment on other things than facts. And, one more thing. The speed at which we have scienced the shit out of Covid (the amount of science that we have done in response to this virus) is, at least to me, astounding. If we succeed, which it looks like we will, to win this battle using the vaccines which are already available, it, not only, is in favour of science in fact being very quick, but could also be considered one of humanities greatest feats.
  - robocat 6y ago
    > The speed at which we have scienced the shit out of Covid Alternatively I have been absolutely appalled at how slow our institutions have been to respond correctly in so many ways. 1. Anosmia: it took months before I heard about it, and months before it got added to lists of symptoms. A common and distinctive signal back before we had testing was an opportunity lost. 2. The emphasis on hand washing and the de-emphasis of transmission by air... dangerously retarded. 3. The whole face masks bullshit - all the probabilities pointed towards their use being beneficial... because even small reductions to the speed of transmission can reduce exponential growth. 4. The lack of information about real-world testing of transmission - presumably virus transmission was tested on people in more than one authoritarian country, yet I never saw the results of that testing surface. The above are only some of the significant delays that I saw in the transmission of science and fact during the epidemic, and I haven’t even really looked into the topic in depth (mostly I just skimmed HN for information).
monoideism 6y ago
If you're referring to fecal transplants, you're wrong. There is significant controlled clinical data that it's effective. Many more trials are underway. And there are masses of anecdotal case reports of truly miraculous recoveries.
- cpncrunch 6y ago
  But this particular study isn't one of them. It is completely uncontrolled. That's the problem with HN. People just can't tell the difference between good science and non-science, and they keep upvoting these junk articles.

ngngngng 6y ago

Isn't all science "pseudo-science type reasoning" before someone goes out and proves/disproves it? I don't see a problem with some curious conversation.

tkzed49 6y ago
there's nothing wrong with sharing anecdotes, but it's not science until someone actually does the "proving/disproving" in a convincing way.
- surfsvammel 6y ago
  Well, it might be wrong to share anecdotes, IMO. We should always be careful when communicating online as we don’t know who we might be communicating with. Someone might take those anecdotes as proof that something works, and might go out and do something that might not be safe.
surfsvammel 6y ago
No. There is difference. Science works by making observations, making hypothesis and then testing those. The result is some kind of knowledge which is useful for making predictions. Reasoning in this world is based on that. We only make predictions when something is tested, established or pure fact. What I mean by pseudo-science type reasoning is; not based on any fact, nor any position which has been tested (scientifically), nor any established knowledge. Instead it is often based on anecdotes or the reason is motivated or heavily biased. Frankly, I don’t care too much about bad reasoning. But when there is risk that it might be understood as recommendations, and it might be unsafe for someone reading it, then I think it’s dangerous.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

neuronic 6y ago

I mean, full agreement here but the... that science should be done and not financially starved because the outcome serves no long-term financial interests.

npsimons 6y ago

> Hacker news is one of the places where I often value the comments more than the linked articles themselves. But wow. This thread is full of pseudo-science type reasoning. It's been this way for years. HN is really quite good when it comes to things in their wheelhouse (software, tech companies), but hilariously bad about diet and related issues, I suspect because it's a sore spot for many and they are in denial.

Lopiolis 6y ago
Well, more than diet, anything that isn't technical in nature. Economics, (geo-)politics, biology (particularly humans), etc. There's a lot of that fallacy around here that being knowledgeable/smart in one area means that obviously it transfers to every other field.
- npsimons 6y ago
  I just remember a while back fecal transplants came up here (and other forums I frequent) as a "treatment" for obesity, as they found different gut flora between obese and healthy weight populations. So many people were thinking they could get a fecal transplant to cure their obesity, not stopping to ask maybe what was causing gut flora to be different between obese and healthy weight populations. And as for diet, the studies are out there. I'm no expert, but I listen to people who could credibly be argued are (as one example Dr. Greger who reads tons of studies and cites them in his videos), and typically their advice comes down to common wisdom that people just don't want to hear: eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
pas 6y ago
Diet is one of the things that's absolutely full of bad science, because it's hard to study. So claiming HN is somehow in denial implies there's an amazing scientific consensus. (Also even if we take the best studies at face value the relative risk differences are ridiculously low between diets. [At least as far as I know.])
- npsimons 6y ago

m463 6y ago

I'm from the internet and I might not actually have a science degree, but I do have a Ph.D. in the thousands of beneficial uses of hemp.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hinkley 6y ago

The scientific method works at a very slow pace and goes even slower when public opinion is against an idea. We have a lot of known unknowns about gut biota. And a lot of people whose gut biota are literally killing them. And a lot of friends and family of those people. They are of course going to be frustrated. Especially when they look at how long those question marks have existed. Get to it already! Feyman’s wife died while the antibiotic that saved people like her was in drug trials. Can you imagine being that close to a cure and missing it? When I read about people dying of infections mid century I have to pull up my calendar and just pity them a little bit more.

surfsvammel 6y ago
I am not sure what you mean by ‘the scientific method is slow’. Compared to what, really? Just winging it? But I think I see what you mean. And yes, science do take time. From discoveries in basic science, all the way to clinical trials and then treatment approval, there is significant lead time. And, of course, it is especially sad for those who suffer when treatment seem to be just around the corner. But the alternative is surely worse; to not test, to not review or to base treatment on other things than facts. And, one more thing. The speed at which we have scienced the shit out of Covid (the amount of science that we have done in response to this virus) is, at least to me, astounding. If we succeed, which it looks like we will, to win this battle using the vaccines which are already available, it, not only, is in favour of science in fact being very quick, but could also be considered one of humanities greatest feats.
- robocat 6y ago
  > The speed at which we have scienced the shit out of Covid Alternatively I have been absolutely appalled at how slow our institutions have been to respond correctly in so many ways. 1. Anosmia: it took months before I heard about it, and months before it got added to lists of symptoms. A common and distinctive signal back before we had testing was an opportunity lost. 2. The emphasis on hand washing and the de-emphasis of transmission by air... dangerously retarded. 3. The whole face masks bullshit - all the probabilities pointed towards their use being beneficial... because even small reductions to the speed of transmission can reduce exponential growth. 4. The lack of information about real-world testing of transmission - presumably virus transmission was tested on people in more than one authoritarian country, yet I never saw the results of that testing surface. The above are only some of the significant delays that I saw in the transmission of science and fact during the epidemic, and I haven’t even really looked into the topic in depth (mostly I just skimmed HN for information).

monoideism 6y ago

If you're referring to fecal transplants, you're wrong. There is significant controlled clinical data that it's effective. Many more trials are underway. And there are masses of anecdotal case reports of truly miraculous recoveries.

cpncrunch 6y ago
But this particular study isn't one of them. It is completely uncontrolled. That's the problem with HN. People just can't tell the difference between good science and non-science, and they keep upvoting these junk articles.