3 ms·
I don't think we should discourage people from having a pet hypothesis if they're open about it. I seriously doubt that in academia most don't have their own pe
by iosystem 4y ago
I don't think we should discourage people from having a pet hypothesis if they're open about it. I seriously doubt that in academia most don't have their own pet hypothesis. I think the problem is when persons aren't open about whatever being their pet hypothesis and or even deliberately going out of bounds on what's acceptable based on their own pet hypothesis. As I said to another person that replied to me, you can google "fungi and Alzheimer's " to easily see the research in great detail. Maybe even visiting researchgate and doing the same. Also thanks for replying because I do have family members that have it.
- robbiep 4y agoMost pet hypotheses of researchers are informed by actually knowing about the disease, and not disregarding things such as 1) years of schooling (protective) 2) early onset alzheimers (genetic) 3) APOE2 (protective) 4) APOE4 (higher risk) and the multitude of other factors. Basically, if you’re going to make a claim and not be some armchair scientist, you need to not Dunning-Krueger yourself. I’m not saying you have, but the way you’re representing yourself suggests you’re at risk of it
- iosystem 4y agoI think people are acting unfair towards me if what you're asserting is the cause of the behaviour. Unless my interpretation and expression of a "pet hypotheses" was truly wrong of me to do. Since I don't think writing about one's pet hypotheses is making a claim in what would indeed warrant negative behaviour.