4 ms·
Yes, but one should understand how science is usually done. Some scientists are getting grants from private funds, some don’t, and most scientists rely heavily
by nlitened 5y ago
Yes, but one should understand how science is usually done. Some scientists are getting grants from private funds, some don’t, and most scientists rely heavily on getting grant money to live and to continue their research. In medical science, nutrition, psychology, economics, sociology, it’s very easy to conduct a research that would be favorable to major fund donors.
Refer to how “science” covered smoking for decades, how eating fat was thought to be harmful for decades, how major economists missed every single crisis, and how many economist-led mutual funds went bust. And also who sponsored each research.
Of course, it’s not how it works in “real” sciences like physics, because criteria on research results are very strict there. But you should by default be very skeptical about any groundbreaking results in social sciences.
- refurb 5y agoThis isn’t social science? It’s a “vaping has far fewer toxic chemicals compared to cigarette smoke” type science.
- nlitened 5y agoI’d argue that “far fewer” is not that much of a science. How much less of each exactly? How does the smaller amount affect cancer and other diseases? (linearly? sublinearly? no long-term effect from this reduction in dose? Higher cancer risk because of the vapor?) How smokers’ habits change with vaping? Do they vape more often than they had smoked? Is vaping more social, hence more people get “sucked in”? Do children start vaping earlier? Long term, is starting vaping better than trying to stop smoking? So many facets, so much beyond “we found this number smaller, therefore we recommend smokers to vape now”