5 ms·

I think he understands the difference. His point is that most people don't.

by hasenj 15y ago

kenjackson 15y ago
I don't think so. Take this statement for example: Science needs a new set of ethics. It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used, what was brought into the study a priori, the sample size, and how it was reviewed. Scientists should be clear when they are speaking on matters of reproducible science -- such as the absorption spectrum of CO2, the Greenhouse principle, the fact that man changes his environment, and black-body physics -- and when they are totally speculating, like predicting the global temperature in 100 years. These are different types of information. (I hate to use global warming, but it's in vogue.) First, Isn't what he wants in medical studies completely standard practice? I regularly read NEJM and their standard format is: Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion. I feel like he's getting his medical science from the NYTimes, which is fine as a starting point, but those are articles written by reporters. Find the actual study to see what the scientist did. Second, if you actually read the "speculative" studies, rather than just watching Fox News you'll typically see how they come to the conclusion of the temperature in 100 years. They detail and construct a model, sometimes via simulation. It's not that anyone is saying, "This is what the temperature will be guaranteed", rather it's saying, "here's a model we constructed. We tested it on historical data and it's accurate to this extent. This is what we see looking forward. These are the factors that contribute most to this result." That's how science is done. That's how I can hypothesize the sun will come up tomorrow -- I have historical data, I create a model of the solar system, gravity, inertia, etc... and say based on that I think the sun will come up again tomorrow, and based on my models I think it will be colder in the winter than the summer. What he considers "speculative" science is just normal science, but where the models aren't as well understood, and part of science is strengthening the models. I just feel like he doesn't get science at all. When you don't really understand something, you're more likely to hate it.
- lutorm 15y ago
  First, Isn't what he wants in medical studies completely standard practice? It probably is (I don't have a habit of reading medical articles.) But there are still people writing papers like "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...) so it's not clear that implies that they have their shit together...
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    This is one of the problems with the perception of science -- which is that scientists always are right. They're not. Falsifying existing claims is part of science. If no claims were ever debunked then I'd be suspicious that it was more faith than science. With that said, sloppy research does happen. And Ioannidis has pointed this out. But pointing out that there's a high correlation between people who eat blueberries and IQ, in one study is useful. It's not a conclusive -- especially since there was no hypothesis going in. But it gives the pretext for double-blind studies. It advances science. Of course, there is also flat out corruption, which I have no answers for. That's just part of human life.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

I think he understands the difference. His point is that most people don't.

by hasenj 15y ago

I think he understands the difference. His point is that most people don't.

I don't think so. Take this statement for example: Science needs a new set of ethics. It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used, what was brought into the study a priori, the sample size, and how it was reviewed. Scientists should be clear when they are speaking on matters of reproducible science -- such as the absorption spectrum of CO2, the Greenhouse principle, the fact that man changes his environment, and black-body physics -- and when they are totally speculating, like predicting the global temperature in 100 years. These are different types of information. (I hate to use global warming, but it's in vogue.) First, Isn't what he wants in medical studies completely standard practice? I regularly read NEJM and their standard format is: Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion. I feel like he's getting his medical science from the NYTimes, which is fine as a starting point, but those are articles written by reporters. Find the actual study to see what the scientist did. Second, if you actually read the "speculative" studies, rather than just watching Fox News you'll typically see how they come to the conclusion of the temperature in 100 years. They detail and construct a model, sometimes via simulation. It's not that anyone is saying, "This is what the temperature will be guaranteed", rather it's saying, "here's a model we constructed. We tested it on historical data and it's accurate to this extent. This is what we see looking forward. These are the factors that contribute most to this result." That's how science is done. That's how I can hypothesize the sun will come up tomorrow -- I have historical data, I create a model of the solar system, gravity, inertia, etc... and say based on that I think the sun will come up again tomorrow, and based on my models I think it will be colder in the winter than the summer. What he considers "speculative" science is just normal science, but where the models aren't as well understood, and part of science is strengthening the models. I just feel like he doesn't get science at all. When you don't really understand something, you're more likely to hate it.

lutorm 15y ago
First, Isn't what he wants in medical studies completely standard practice? It probably is (I don't have a habit of reading medical articles.) But there are still people writing papers like "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...) so it's not clear that implies that they have their shit together...
- kenjackson 15y ago
  This is one of the problems with the perception of science -- which is that scientists always are right. They're not. Falsifying existing claims is part of science. If no claims were ever debunked then I'd be suspicious that it was more faith than science. With that said, sloppy research does happen. And Ioannidis has pointed this out. But pointing out that there's a high correlation between people who eat blueberries and IQ, in one study is useful. It's not a conclusive -- especially since there was no hypothesis going in. But it gives the pretext for double-blind studies. It advances science. Of course, there is also flat out corruption, which I have no answers for. That's just part of human life.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]