9 ms·
This is why journalists need to learn some basic stats. The credulity with which he takes the pro-sun researchers claims, the ignorance he displays about the sh
by Gimpei 4y ago
This is why journalists need to learn some basic stats. The credulity with which he takes the pro-sun researchers claims, the ignorance he displays about the shortcomings of observational studies are as depressing as they are common. Not saying, by the way, that I don’t believe the sun hypothesis, I just think this article displays false confidence. Science is hard; when you present the latest theory as The Truth, all you do is undermine long term faith in science. Sometimes these new discoveries bear out, but most of the time, they don’t. See this pattern enough and it becomes reasonable to conclude that scientists are full of shit.
- xpe 4y agoWell said in many ways; however, it isn't clear that having more statistics savvy journalists would address the problems associated with media economics and incentives.
- lbriner 4y agoAgree. How well-trained would a journalist need to be in order to effectively analyze something that has probably taken several years of effort. Lots of numbers != good interpretations and little data != bad conclusion. But agree with OP that in a world that is becoming less and less trusting of authority (to a dangerous extreme) that it would be nice for those in authority to have enough humility to accept when their work is questioned.
- guelo 4y agoWhy don't you demand as much strong evidence from the pro-sunscreen status quo?
- lr4444lr 4y agoNo, because they have a demonstrable mechanism from pre-established science: UV radiation damages DNA, which causes cancer. Their product absorbs or scatters UV radiation. This is the same as the teeth flossing skeptics: observational studies suggesting a paradox are interesting, but they actually need to unearth convincing alternative models with at least as much support as the dominant one for why they're right.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- taeric 4y agoThis feels wrong, too. You are presenting one option as a settled thing because it has a proposed mechanism. I agree that just dropping a seemingly safe belief should take effort. I have no problem challenging them on a regular basis, though. Especially with more than just arguments and thought experiments. More observational studies can almost certainly only be a good thing.
- dsizzle 4y agoGP didn't say that the science of sun exposure is "settled." Also, that UV damages DNA and causes cancer isn't simply a "proposed" mechanism, it's been tested many times. I would say pure "observation" per se has little value -- for it to be scientifically valid it needs to seek explanations.
- taeric 4y agoObservational studies are certainly science. Any claim against that is going to be hard to defend. The mechanism isn't really at question. But just as sun exposure can kill grass, so to can lack of sun. We know that humans don't do photosynthesis, but it seems reasonable to ask if we do get other benefits. Note. Is reasonable to ask and study. Is not reasonable to just assume the conclusion.
- dsizzle 4y agoBy "observational" studies I realize you probably just meant studies where they don't manipulate a variable (which, while less than ideal, it is indeed science), whereas I was making a more philosophical point, a la Popper https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/778918-the-belief-that-science-proceeds-from-observation-to-theory-is https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/778918-the-belief-that-scie...
- 4y ago
- refurb 4y agoReporters have zero incentive to accurately report on things like this. The reporters goal is eyeballs. Job well done. By the time someone looks at it closely, nobody is talking about the article anymore.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]