3 ms·

I find it disappointing and disheartening that you are dismissing peer-reviewed studies as "propaganda". Your argumentation is not that different from the one u

I find it disappointing and disheartening that you are dismissing peer-reviewed studies as "propaganda". Your argumentation is not that different from the one used by climate change deniers. The first study is commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the second was funded by a Senior Academic Fellowship from the Society for the Study of Addiction.

watwut 5y ago
Peer reviewed studies disagree and dismiss each other all the time. Peer reviewed studies are often "propaganda". Peer review guarantees certain minimal bar and that your general structure is sane. Reproducibility and actual results are not necessary validated. The larger scientific discussion where study is confirmed is after peer review. On HN, they are specifically disagreed with super often. Especially anything "softer" It is not like it was taboo.
- bjourne 5y ago
  It's sad that science denial is now the norm even on Hacker News.
  - watwut 5y ago
    First, nothing changed, HN people were always treating studies that way. And second, it is not scientific behavior to treat a single study as gospel. It is scientific when consensus emerges from many different studies and when those are reproduced and verified. Pearl clutching over "peer-review" mostly suggests people don't know what peer review can or can not do.
  - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
    This specific study contradicts other studies before that came to a different conclusion. It's kind of a hen-egg problem, in which I firmly believe this study got it wrong. No "science denial". Questioning of this specific study and disregarding your appeals for authority.
jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Neither your ad hominem attacks, nor "peer reviewed", nor the implied credibility of the funding impresses me in the slightest... You think state or commision funded studies cannot be biased?

watwut 5y ago

Peer reviewed studies disagree and dismiss each other all the time. Peer reviewed studies are often "propaganda". Peer review guarantees certain minimal bar and that your general structure is sane. Reproducibility and actual results are not necessary validated. The larger scientific discussion where study is confirmed is after peer review. On HN, they are specifically disagreed with super often. Especially anything "softer" It is not like it was taboo.

bjourne 5y ago
It's sad that science denial is now the norm even on Hacker News.
- watwut 5y ago
  First, nothing changed, HN people were always treating studies that way. And second, it is not scientific behavior to treat a single study as gospel. It is scientific when consensus emerges from many different studies and when those are reproduced and verified. Pearl clutching over "peer-review" mostly suggests people don't know what peer review can or can not do.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
  This specific study contradicts other studies before that came to a different conclusion. It's kind of a hen-egg problem, in which I firmly believe this study got it wrong. No "science denial". Questioning of this specific study and disregarding your appeals for authority.

jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago

Neither your ad hominem attacks, nor "peer reviewed", nor the implied credibility of the funding impresses me in the slightest... You think state or commision funded studies cannot be biased?