3 ms·

Think I'll pass given the high claim and frankly single study. Not sure I'd call myself an expert but given this is on a uni page and not nature.com I think it'

by rob_c 4y ago

Think I'll pass given the high claim and frankly single study. Not sure I'd call myself an expert but given this is on a uni page and not nature.com I think it's very easy to criticize this as probably not standing up to too much as of yet.

klyrs 4y ago
It's weird how often people read a headline and interpret "may reverse signs of aging" as "go out right and much on the sand-gummies, you'll definitely live forever." Headlines are bollox, lay-articles are little better, and journal articles tend to be truthy in their claims (but are occasionally total fabrications). Re-calibrate your expectations.
- robocat 4y ago
  > journal articles tend to be truthy in their claims The replication crisis (aka replicability crisis or the reproducibility crisis) says you really really shouldn’t trust most journal articles.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    I said truthy, not truthful. They're often fairly accurate reports about what they did/recorded (I said "often," mind, not always -- p-hacking is a common lie of omission). That doesn't mean they're accurate predictions about future results, as studies are extremely limited in their scope, size, control, etc., which is one of two factors behind the replication crisis. The other factor being that replication studies are rare. When I read headlines/articles like this, I think "oh neat, I wonder if somebody will identify the mechanism behind some mystery protein acting on whatever system in mice, and if that interaction has an analogue in humans." People on HN frequently seem to be enraged rather than curious about studies with overblown headlines, and it's a little sad.
- rob_c 4y ago
  1. Bio article 2. Peer review not done for local web publish 3. Not going to over-emphisize but the research "centres of excellence" aren't Oxford or Harvard here 4. The reproducibility crisis in bio 5. It's clearly trying to get more attention than it's worth. Unless I recalibrate my expectations of reality (yes I work in research as a published professional) it's bad. (Eg this is defending publications of "Highs signal at 110GeV" from the tevatron as being worth reading in the 00's. It's clearly biased as we now know it couldn't have happened) 6. I'm not sure how we get from my comment of 1 study to there being no obesity epidemic in burgerland. Please stop reading vitriol into my comments.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Your comment is one of several on this article. Some enraged/dismissive, some overly credulous. It's the lack of curiousity I find disappointing.

by rob_c 4y ago

klyrs 4y ago

It's weird how often people read a headline and interpret "may reverse signs of aging" as "go out right and much on the sand-gummies, you'll definitely live forever." Headlines are bollox, lay-articles are little better, and journal articles tend to be truthy in their claims (but are occasionally total fabrications). Re-calibrate your expectations.

robocat 4y ago
> journal articles tend to be truthy in their claims The replication crisis (aka replicability crisis or the reproducibility crisis) says you really really shouldn’t trust most journal articles.
- klyrs 4y ago
  I said truthy, not truthful. They're often fairly accurate reports about what they did/recorded (I said "often," mind, not always -- p-hacking is a common lie of omission). That doesn't mean they're accurate predictions about future results, as studies are extremely limited in their scope, size, control, etc., which is one of two factors behind the replication crisis. The other factor being that replication studies are rare. When I read headlines/articles like this, I think "oh neat, I wonder if somebody will identify the mechanism behind some mystery protein acting on whatever system in mice, and if that interaction has an analogue in humans." People on HN frequently seem to be enraged rather than curious about studies with overblown headlines, and it's a little sad.
rob_c 4y ago
1. Bio article 2. Peer review not done for local web publish 3. Not going to over-emphisize but the research "centres of excellence" aren't Oxford or Harvard here 4. The reproducibility crisis in bio 5. It's clearly trying to get more attention than it's worth. Unless I recalibrate my expectations of reality (yes I work in research as a published professional) it's bad. (Eg this is defending publications of "Highs signal at 110GeV" from the tevatron as being worth reading in the 00's. It's clearly biased as we now know it couldn't have happened) 6. I'm not sure how we get from my comment of 1 study to there being no obesity epidemic in burgerland. Please stop reading vitriol into my comments.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Your comment is one of several on this article. Some enraged/dismissive, some overly credulous. It's the lack of curiousity I find disappointing.