5 ms·

Thank you for debunking that comment and spelling out the problems. Without this explanation I'd have no idea.

by arcticfox 5y ago

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
When something sounds too good to be true it's easy to visit https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and run a search for published literature However, be careful! Savvy supplement companies will give large ownernship shares to doctors in exchange for essentially manufacturing positive-looking literature and pushing it to pay-to-publish journals. You have to read the conflict of interest sections and have a high degree of suspicion to make sure you're reading a real study instead of astroturfing
- omginternets 5y ago
  At the end of the day, there is no substitute for reading a large amount of primary sources and really trying to understand what's going on.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    The problem with this is that you need expertise in the area of interest to know what’s good or bad research, what’s commonly known, and who generally is doing good work. This is too much to ask for the general public in areas like biology, which is why we have experts to filter the information. The collapse of trust in expertise only widens the possibility for junk to be pushed through, which will result in a terrible self-actualizing cycle. When you see on social media “I did the research and found…”, all that means is someone put something into google and read something that fit a confirmation bias with zero criticality or training on how to interpret what they read.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      A large (majority?) part of gaining an expertise is precisely through a large volume of meticulous reading. But I think we're saying the same thing: most people "doing their own research", are not doing meaningful research, partly because it's a herculean undertaking.

5 ms·

Thank you for debunking that comment and spelling out the problems. Without this explanation I'd have no idea.

by arcticfox 5y ago

Thank you for debunking that comment and spelling out the problems. Without this explanation I'd have no idea.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
When something sounds too good to be true it's easy to visit https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and run a search for published literature However, be careful! Savvy supplement companies will give large ownernship shares to doctors in exchange for essentially manufacturing positive-looking literature and pushing it to pay-to-publish journals. You have to read the conflict of interest sections and have a high degree of suspicion to make sure you're reading a real study instead of astroturfing
- omginternets 5y ago
  At the end of the day, there is no substitute for reading a large amount of primary sources and really trying to understand what's going on.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    The problem with this is that you need expertise in the area of interest to know what’s good or bad research, what’s commonly known, and who generally is doing good work. This is too much to ask for the general public in areas like biology, which is why we have experts to filter the information. The collapse of trust in expertise only widens the possibility for junk to be pushed through, which will result in a terrible self-actualizing cycle. When you see on social media “I did the research and found…”, all that means is someone put something into google and read something that fit a confirmation bias with zero criticality or training on how to interpret what they read.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      A large (majority?) part of gaining an expertise is precisely through a large volume of meticulous reading. But I think we're saying the same thing: most people "doing their own research", are not doing meaningful research, partly because it's a herculean undertaking.