4 ms·

Indeed there is a link but we don't even know the direction of causation. I find it quite plausible that people with as-yet undiagnosed early-onset Alzheimer's

by zugi 4y ago

Indeed there is a link but we don't even know the direction of causation. I find it quite plausible that people with as-yet undiagnosed early-onset Alzheimer's forget to get flu shots.

ncmncm 4y ago
Yet, you also find it plausible that people who spent years on this project would never have thought of that. Your misplaced trust in your own plausibility filter causes you to make foolish posts on HN.
- Jensson 4y ago
  > Yet, you also find it plausible that people who spent years on this project would never have thought of that. I find it plausible that the few people who spent hours reviewing this paper didn't think of that, and that the people publishing the paper ignored it since ignoring it could help them gain more funding. > Your misplaced trust in your own plausibility filter causes you to make foolish posts on HN. It is foolish to believe that scientists does things properly. As an outsider you only see the outlier results, meaning that most of what reaches HN could be faked or statistical trickery or have simple explanations due to poor science since poor science is more likely to produce headlines, while most scientists could still do the right thing.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Scientists are very frequently wrong. Any scientist who doesn't admit that is none. One example is adjacent to the topic here, continued adherence to the amyloid beta hypothesis. But their mistakes are generally subtle, and not what somebody who knows nothing about the subject invents in the first seconds after first hearing about the topic.
    - native_samples 4y ago
      We're talking about epidemiology though. Their papers routinely contain major, grievous errors that anyone can spot in five minutes. There might well be subtle errors too but it doesn't matter when the field is overrun with papers that are quite obviously invalid on their face to any outsider, yet none of the insiders care. The primary COVID model that triggered lockdowns was full of programming errors. It had never been peer reviewed, and its prediction of deaths varied by 80,000 depending on whether you engaged a data loading optimization or not. It gave totally different results depending on available CPU features! There were no tests and the results had never been validated against anything. Outsiders pointed out these problems, and the team didn't care, nor did anyone else in the field of epidemiology. That's just one example of many. Epidemiology is kinda like the phrenology of our era (one of quite a few). It's not built on a firm scientific foundation.

by zugi 4y ago

Indeed there is a link but we don't even know the direction of causation. I find it quite plausible that people with as-yet undiagnosed early-onset Alzheimer's forget to get flu shots.

ncmncm 4y ago

Yet, you also find it plausible that people who spent years on this project would never have thought of that. Your misplaced trust in your own plausibility filter causes you to make foolish posts on HN.

Jensson 4y ago
> Yet, you also find it plausible that people who spent years on this project would never have thought of that. I find it plausible that the few people who spent hours reviewing this paper didn't think of that, and that the people publishing the paper ignored it since ignoring it could help them gain more funding. > Your misplaced trust in your own plausibility filter causes you to make foolish posts on HN. It is foolish to believe that scientists does things properly. As an outsider you only see the outlier results, meaning that most of what reaches HN could be faked or statistical trickery or have simple explanations due to poor science since poor science is more likely to produce headlines, while most scientists could still do the right thing.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Scientists are very frequently wrong. Any scientist who doesn't admit that is none. One example is adjacent to the topic here, continued adherence to the amyloid beta hypothesis. But their mistakes are generally subtle, and not what somebody who knows nothing about the subject invents in the first seconds after first hearing about the topic.
  - native_samples 4y ago
    We're talking about epidemiology though. Their papers routinely contain major, grievous errors that anyone can spot in five minutes. There might well be subtle errors too but it doesn't matter when the field is overrun with papers that are quite obviously invalid on their face to any outsider, yet none of the insiders care. The primary COVID model that triggered lockdowns was full of programming errors. It had never been peer reviewed, and its prediction of deaths varied by 80,000 depending on whether you engaged a data loading optimization or not. It gave totally different results depending on available CPU features! There were no tests and the results had never been validated against anything. Outsiders pointed out these problems, and the team didn't care, nor did anyone else in the field of epidemiology. That's just one example of many. Epidemiology is kinda like the phrenology of our era (one of quite a few). It's not built on a firm scientific foundation.