4 ms·

there's this thing about the modern internet era which makes it possible to find a study to debunk (or support) pretty much any idea/theory you want. specially

by bsedlm 5y ago

there's this thing about the modern internet era which makes it possible to find a study to debunk (or support) pretty much any idea/theory you want. specially in the midst of an information/propaganda war all I'm trying to say is that I have decided not to think in the way you just did e.g. "where's that study which supports what I already believe?". It doesn't seem like a good tactic anymore

veltas 5y ago
I'm sort of asking if anyone remembers this as well, was posted on HN, I probably could find it myself but since I don't have the time right now I thought I'd make the comment!
rootusrootus 5y ago
It also does not help that many scientific papers suffer from a reproducibility problem. But I hate to sink into defeatism and assume that there is no such thing as objective fact unless I do the experiments myself (and get them right...).
Verdex 5y ago
> all I'm trying to say is that I have decided not to think in the way you just did e.g. "where's that study which supports what I already believe?". Hmm. It looks like you're ascribing to the above comment the thought process: "I'm only looking for studies which only tell me that which I believe." However, the above comment doesn't seem to be saying this. They thought there was more to the story and are querying for the rest of the story. Meanwhile, you seem to ascribe to yourself the quality of not searching for data that supports what you already believe. However, it seems to me that searching for more studies (even if you're only looking for data that confirms your bias) is a better outcome than assuming (without more proof) that people who aren't you are thinking "the bad way"TM. I mean, if you had searched for additional proof to discover that what you already thought was true about above commenter (ie they were thinking the bad way) you might have discovered that they in fact were simply looking for additional context due to recalling past events that indicated that there might have been additional context.
bogwog 5y ago
This is nothing new, it's a defect of humanity that has existed forever. It's also a problem that has been solved through the scientific method and peer review. It goes against our nature, so it's a skill that needs to be learned and practiced. This means that the average person isn't going to have those skills, and even people with those skills aren't all going to be experts. What is new is that the internet is leading every random idiot to believe that they're an expert on everything. So finding a link to a "study" with a title that sounds like it supports your point (without even reading it, and definitely without critically evaluating it) is seen as doing research. > all I'm trying to say is that I have decided not to think in the way you just did e.g. "where's that study which supports what I already believe?". It doesn't seem like a good tactic anymore You might be victim to what I described above. Finding a study that already supports what you believe was never a "good tactic". In fact, calling it a tactic makes it seem as if it's an adversarial thing where there's a winner and a loser. It's not. Facts and truths aren't partisan (ignoring them is)
- meowkit 5y ago
  +1 to this response. To add, playing a paper like a trading card is essentially an appeal to authority[1]. Readers, you have to build mental a model and use causal mechanism and research studies as evidence, not proof. Accept the models which are stronger than the ones you have, even if they make you uncomfortable or conflict with your preconceived notions. Its ok to flip between conclusions as new evidence presents itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
austinjp 5y ago
Indeed. One issue we have today is a glut of scientific information, some of which is high quality and some isn't. Also, some will later be shown to be false, and some correct, in any given context. It's not enough to say simply that a study exists (even if it is a large meta-study); it's necessary to actually read it in full and critically appraise it. But ain't nobody got time for that.... which is a problem!
- fallat 5y ago
  If they don't have time to read the paper, they aren't investing in the argument enough, and at that point you know the other person is not open to being wrong, which then you respect and end the conversation.
  - austinjp 5y ago
    On a one-to-one basis, that might be one approach. On a system- or industry-wide basis, this approach fails to address the real issue of the significant time taken for evidence to reach patients. Simply walking away leaves the problem unresolved.
pessimizer 5y ago
> I have decided not to think in the way you just did e.g. "where's that study which supports what I already believe?" I'm not sure you have if you immediately assume what veltas believes because they're asking to be reminded about another study. Seems like projection. My personal opinion is that it's less noble to close your ears to new information once you've found the information that you prefer than it is to look for more information when you don't like the information you have.

by bsedlm 5y ago

veltas 5y ago

I'm sort of asking if anyone remembers this as well, was posted on HN, I probably could find it myself but since I don't have the time right now I thought I'd make the comment!

rootusrootus 5y ago

It also does not help that many scientific papers suffer from a reproducibility problem. But I hate to sink into defeatism and assume that there is no such thing as objective fact unless I do the experiments myself (and get them right...).

Verdex 5y ago

> all I'm trying to say is that I have decided not to think in the way you just did e.g. "where's that study which supports what I already believe?". Hmm. It looks like you're ascribing to the above comment the thought process: "I'm only looking for studies which only tell me that which I believe." However, the above comment doesn't seem to be saying this. They thought there was more to the story and are querying for the rest of the story. Meanwhile, you seem to ascribe to yourself the quality of not searching for data that supports what you already believe. However, it seems to me that searching for more studies (even if you're only looking for data that confirms your bias) is a better outcome than assuming (without more proof) that people who aren't you are thinking "the bad way"TM. I mean, if you had searched for additional proof to discover that what you already thought was true about above commenter (ie they were thinking the bad way) you might have discovered that they in fact were simply looking for additional context due to recalling past events that indicated that there might have been additional context.

bogwog 5y ago

This is nothing new, it's a defect of humanity that has existed forever. It's also a problem that has been solved through the scientific method and peer review. It goes against our nature, so it's a skill that needs to be learned and practiced. This means that the average person isn't going to have those skills, and even people with those skills aren't all going to be experts. What is new is that the internet is leading every random idiot to believe that they're an expert on everything. So finding a link to a "study" with a title that sounds like it supports your point (without even reading it, and definitely without critically evaluating it) is seen as doing research. > all I'm trying to say is that I have decided not to think in the way you just did e.g. "where's that study which supports what I already believe?". It doesn't seem like a good tactic anymore You might be victim to what I described above. Finding a study that already supports what you believe was never a "good tactic". In fact, calling it a tactic makes it seem as if it's an adversarial thing where there's a winner and a loser. It's not. Facts and truths aren't partisan (ignoring them is)

meowkit 5y ago
+1 to this response. To add, playing a paper like a trading card is essentially an appeal to authority[1]. Readers, you have to build mental a model and use causal mechanism and research studies as evidence, not proof. Accept the models which are stronger than the ones you have, even if they make you uncomfortable or conflict with your preconceived notions. Its ok to flip between conclusions as new evidence presents itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

austinjp 5y ago

Indeed. One issue we have today is a glut of scientific information, some of which is high quality and some isn't. Also, some will later be shown to be false, and some correct, in any given context. It's not enough to say simply that a study exists (even if it is a large meta-study); it's necessary to actually read it in full and critically appraise it. But ain't nobody got time for that.... which is a problem!

fallat 5y ago
If they don't have time to read the paper, they aren't investing in the argument enough, and at that point you know the other person is not open to being wrong, which then you respect and end the conversation.
- austinjp 5y ago
  On a one-to-one basis, that might be one approach. On a system- or industry-wide basis, this approach fails to address the real issue of the significant time taken for evidence to reach patients. Simply walking away leaves the problem unresolved.

pessimizer 5y ago

> I have decided not to think in the way you just did e.g. "where's that study which supports what I already believe?" I'm not sure you have if you immediately assume what veltas believes because they're asking to be reminded about another study. Seems like projection. My personal opinion is that it's less noble to close your ears to new information once you've found the information that you prefer than it is to look for more information when you don't like the information you have.