5 ms·

It's pretty obvious that there are useful truths that don't yet meet rigorous scientific standards of evidence. Like masks being useful in a pandemic or parachu

It's pretty obvious that there are useful truths that don't yet meet rigorous scientific standards of evidence. Like masks being useful in a pandemic or parachutes working. Non-serious "randomised trials" have been done with parachutes, and found no measurable effect - because for safety reasons the participants only jumped from an altitude of 2 metres or something. In sports medicine there are loads of things where the anecdotal evidence is fairly strong and yet there is no rigorous evidence in favour of something. Like foam rolling, or running on your toes instead of your heels. Sometimes these things are hard to study, or simply haven't been studied yet. In those cases it's OK to fall back on anecdotal evidence, particularly when you don't have reason to believe the evidence is biased (like it would be if someone was trying to sell you a product or an ideology). Some of these things I'm sure will turn out to not be real results, if and when "proper" science gets around to studying them. But in the meantime the anecdotal, uncodified folk knowledge is better than useless. When folk knowledge is "debunked" by science I sometimes still don't rule out that it might be true, because so much science is simply of too poor quality to be able to properly make any such conclusion. See the replication crisis. I'm a scientist with nothing but respect for the scientific method itself, but "has this been scientifically proven" can be a really weak way to determine what's true and what's not in many cases. In those cases you kind of have to do your own reasoning with the data you have, anecdotal or otherwise, and try to get closest to the truth that you can. Which I think can be a valuable process in practice that shouldn't be discarded merely because it's not "proper" science. Scientists are also flawed and sometimes publish results in a biased way to conform to an ideology. For example, I expect folk beliefs about gender differences to be somewhat accurate (not perfect), and for the official science to be hopelessly muddled.

addicted 6y ago
Your examples of parachutes and masks are not examples of useful truths that don’t meet standards of scientific evidence. They are examples of useful truths that have not been tested through double blind randomized control experiments. But they both have scientific evidence behind them, and by any reasonable definition of meeting standards of scientific evidence, they do. The efficacy of parachutes can be derived from first principles. We know parachutes slow descent. And we know the risk of injury and death caused by force of impact. We can calculate how much a parachute slows descent snd therefore reduces force of impact snd prevents death. The benefits of wearing masks in reducing the spread of COVID and serious disease through COVID can similarly be derived from first principles but more importantly, there are many comparative population studies that meet the standard of scientific evidence.
- d0mine 6y ago
  Deriving from first principles is not the only way parachutes, masks can be proved to be effective. We don't need humans to be attached to parachutes, to test that parachutes work. There is various research on masks effectiveness too.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Sure, but in a legal regulatory context, "scientific evidence" means different things than your "reasonable definition".
d0mine 6y ago
It is a too charitable interpretation. Another interpretation of not requiring hard evidence is to imprison somebody just because police thinks that they look guilty. Scientists are flawed. There is a replication crisis in soft science fields. Still scientific method is still a mile above anything else out there.
revax 6y ago
Here is the paper about parachute in your example: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5343 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5343
antibuddy 6y ago
To be fair, the last wave suggests that wearing masks has no effect in this pandemic[0][1]. Comparing Sweden and Germany (which have at least similar health systems and count similarly) the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is about the same, where Swedes rarely wear any masks and in Germany it is mandatory indoors (accessible to the public) and even mandatory in some zones outdoors. Also when you think about it, the permanent mask usage has some serious hygienic downsides. 1. You need to touch your face way more often (reseat+put on/off) 2. Most masks still allow viri to go through (especially on the sides) 3. Masks are often reused and used for too long (correct usage would need either a lot of money+time or hundreds of masks/month) The positive effects of masks in this pandemic are pretty debatable especially given the "circumstantial" evidence. [0]: https://imgur.com/a/MNlOoTN https://imgur.com/a/MNlOoTN [1]: https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/blob/master/public/data/owid-covid-data.xlsx https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/blob/master/public/dat...
- loloquwowndueo 6y ago
  “Viri” is not the plural of “virus”. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-plural-of-virus-112199 https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-plural-of-virus-112199
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Personally, being a compulsive perfectionist, I always use “virus” in English as a mass noun, and never pluralize it. I thus say “several parts of virus” or “several programs of virus”, — an elegant solution, I would say. And yes, I do say “octopodēs”; I am not some bourgeois peasant.
    - loloquwowndueo 6y ago
      The guy I knew who used “scenarii” instead of “scenarios” would probably drive you up the wall :)
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Rexxar 6y ago
"randomised trials" is not the gold standard of scientific evidence it just one method and there are a lots of other methods. It's used in medicine because we have a very weak understanding of what's going on and it's the only method that permit us to progress in this situation : It permit us to get some useful results without having a working model of the situation.
root_axis 6y ago
How do masks not meet the scientific standard of efficacy? I understand you're not making an anti-mask argument, but I'm just genuinely curious to understand why you say this. Besides the obvious benefit of masks mitigating the spray of viral aerosol, as far as I am aware, masks have a lot of scientific support for their efficacy.
- smaryjerry 6y ago
  Not OP, but the primary studies saying masks are effective are basically experiments of function, such as, does a mask block particles more than not wearing a mask? However, studies on their effectiveness in the past have never found actual protection from diseases. For example if every one covers their mouth were they sneeze anyways, then what is a mask really doing? Do people touch their face more often with masks, reuse masks, and actually bring more particles to their face? Diseases are not all airborn and live on surfaces, so is all this interaction with your face to large untrained groups actually increasing the risks? The best we have now is comparing groups of people or states with different policies, which is also not proving masks are effective, but could that cause be due to people still following rules even though the policy isn’t forced or some other unknown reason such as hers immunity being reached, etc.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Or so much of science is filled with jargon that a regular person isn't going to bother understanding. This is why I never call BS on folk stories and such. Even with every story there is a grain of truth to it. Regardless of how much BS.
meowface 6y ago
In the field of psychology and trying to determine what's going on in some particular person's mind, "common sense" doesn't really work, even if it may sometimes work in more objective scientific fields.
fractionalhare 6y ago
> Like foam rolling, or running on your toes instead of your heels. These things have been studied numerous times. Head over to r/AdvancedFitness or r/AdvancedRunning and you'll find people seriously disseminating acacemic, peer-reviewed research on precisely these topics. It can take a while for certain things to go from practitioner consensus to academic consensus. But that doesn't mean academics aren't rigorously studying it. I also have doubts about your mask and parachute examples.

addicted 6y ago

Your examples of parachutes and masks are not examples of useful truths that don’t meet standards of scientific evidence. They are examples of useful truths that have not been tested through double blind randomized control experiments. But they both have scientific evidence behind them, and by any reasonable definition of meeting standards of scientific evidence, they do. The efficacy of parachutes can be derived from first principles. We know parachutes slow descent. And we know the risk of injury and death caused by force of impact. We can calculate how much a parachute slows descent snd therefore reduces force of impact snd prevents death. The benefits of wearing masks in reducing the spread of COVID and serious disease through COVID can similarly be derived from first principles but more importantly, there are many comparative population studies that meet the standard of scientific evidence.

d0mine 6y ago
Deriving from first principles is not the only way parachutes, masks can be proved to be effective. We don't need humans to be attached to parachutes, to test that parachutes work. There is various research on masks effectiveness too.
BurningFrog 6y ago
Sure, but in a legal regulatory context, "scientific evidence" means different things than your "reasonable definition".

d0mine 6y ago

It is a too charitable interpretation. Another interpretation of not requiring hard evidence is to imprison somebody just because police thinks that they look guilty. Scientists are flawed. There is a replication crisis in soft science fields. Still scientific method is still a mile above anything else out there.

revax 6y ago

Here is the paper about parachute in your example: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5343 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5343

antibuddy 6y ago

To be fair, the last wave suggests that wearing masks has no effect in this pandemic[0][1]. Comparing Sweden and Germany (which have at least similar health systems and count similarly) the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is about the same, where Swedes rarely wear any masks and in Germany it is mandatory indoors (accessible to the public) and even mandatory in some zones outdoors. Also when you think about it, the permanent mask usage has some serious hygienic downsides. 1. You need to touch your face way more often (reseat+put on/off) 2. Most masks still allow viri to go through (especially on the sides) 3. Masks are often reused and used for too long (correct usage would need either a lot of money+time or hundreds of masks/month) The positive effects of masks in this pandemic are pretty debatable especially given the "circumstantial" evidence. [0]: https://imgur.com/a/MNlOoTN https://imgur.com/a/MNlOoTN [1]: https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/blob/master/public/data/owid-covid-data.xlsx https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/blob/master/public/dat...

loloquwowndueo 6y ago
“Viri” is not the plural of “virus”. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-plural-of-virus-112199 https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-plural-of-virus-112199
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Personally, being a compulsive perfectionist, I always use “virus” in English as a mass noun, and never pluralize it. I thus say “several parts of virus” or “several programs of virus”, — an elegant solution, I would say. And yes, I do say “octopodēs”; I am not some bourgeois peasant.
  - loloquwowndueo 6y ago
    The guy I knew who used “scenarii” instead of “scenarios” would probably drive you up the wall :)
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Rexxar 6y ago

"randomised trials" is not the gold standard of scientific evidence it just one method and there are a lots of other methods. It's used in medicine because we have a very weak understanding of what's going on and it's the only method that permit us to progress in this situation : It permit us to get some useful results without having a working model of the situation.

root_axis 6y ago

How do masks not meet the scientific standard of efficacy? I understand you're not making an anti-mask argument, but I'm just genuinely curious to understand why you say this. Besides the obvious benefit of masks mitigating the spray of viral aerosol, as far as I am aware, masks have a lot of scientific support for their efficacy.

smaryjerry 6y ago
Not OP, but the primary studies saying masks are effective are basically experiments of function, such as, does a mask block particles more than not wearing a mask? However, studies on their effectiveness in the past have never found actual protection from diseases. For example if every one covers their mouth were they sneeze anyways, then what is a mask really doing? Do people touch their face more often with masks, reuse masks, and actually bring more particles to their face? Diseases are not all airborn and live on surfaces, so is all this interaction with your face to large untrained groups actually increasing the risks? The best we have now is comparing groups of people or states with different policies, which is also not proving masks are effective, but could that cause be due to people still following rules even though the policy isn’t forced or some other unknown reason such as hers immunity being reached, etc.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Or so much of science is filled with jargon that a regular person isn't going to bother understanding. This is why I never call BS on folk stories and such. Even with every story there is a grain of truth to it. Regardless of how much BS.

meowface 6y ago

In the field of psychology and trying to determine what's going on in some particular person's mind, "common sense" doesn't really work, even if it may sometimes work in more objective scientific fields.

fractionalhare 6y ago

> Like foam rolling, or running on your toes instead of your heels. These things have been studied numerous times. Head over to r/AdvancedFitness or r/AdvancedRunning and you'll find people seriously disseminating acacemic, peer-reviewed research on precisely these topics. It can take a while for certain things to go from practitioner consensus to academic consensus. But that doesn't mean academics aren't rigorously studying it. I also have doubts about your mask and parachute examples.