4 ms·

This is why I actually don't trust newspapers or news sites for any medical advice for statements like "a glass of wine a day will help you live longer", or som

This is why I actually don't trust newspapers or news sites for any medical advice for statements like "a glass of wine a day will help you live longer", or some nonsense like that. In fact, the best place to find this information is through the primary literature. You can use Google Scholar and Sci-hub to do your own research. For most issues, it's actually not to hard to understand the primary literature, and it will be much more accurate than the crap you read on popular websites.

themodelplumber 4y ago
The primary literature is a huge waste of time in so many cases though. It can be really frustrating. IF there's not a problem in one of hundreds of representational practices, you can find out later there was some other compromise (and some are HUGE) of the data or methodology. And then if you point out a problem with a research undertaking or study when it is brought up, you can get some set of true-science-believers looking at you like it can't possibly be. It's unreal sometimes. It's really no wonder people spread their subjective experiences as if they are science. Institutional "science" is great as a set of models and perspectives, but when you dip into the product you can start to wonder if you are effectively doing the equivalent of product research by watching the home shopping network.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  The only people who trust science blindly are those who have never seen how science gets done. It's scientism pure and simple. Or to quote a bunch of people who had a great idea: Nullius In Verba.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    In so much of the world today, "science" is a brand, and everyone is told to listen to "scientists" because they "follow the science" and know the best way. The genpop couldn't possibly even begin to wrap their heads around text written above a 5th grade level, so they are told they need to listen to the "scientists" by "authorities"
    - tintedfireglass 4y ago
      That is due to schools giving importance to memorization over critical thinking skills
themitigating 4y ago
Seems quite difficult. For example in his study the sample size was a problem: "Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result." "A woman’s weight can fluctuate as much as 5 pounds over the course of her menstrual cycle" As a regular person how would I know what the correct sample size for this type of study should be? Remember, that number isn't some fixed value but a range that increases confidence (if I'm using that wrong sorry) and it's all subjective. I would also have to think about the uncontrolled factors, like mensuration, as having an effect since he didn't mention it in the original study. This is far too complicated for the majority of people.
- tsol 4y ago
  Plus something being proven by a study, even if well done, still doesn't necessarily prove anything. It generally requires replication to confirm. People have this idea that if they find a study that says something and it looks very legit, it must be true. But studies come out and are later found to be flawed or straight up wrong all the time. Primary sources are not a great source of information for most people.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    "But studies come out and are later found to be flawed or straight up wrong all the time." I didn't even think of this. You could be looking at a study that turned out to be disproven or even fraudulent (though maybe those are removed from journals). This is why there are experts in particular fields who keep up to date and should be the source. The problem is the current wave of anti-intellectualism which turns everything into black and white easy to digest situation. A person lies once, don't trust them. A newspaper printed one or more articles that turned out to false, don't trust them. Doesn't matter how long ago or how many other truthful articles, they are done. However, like the GP tried, they don't offer any reasonable solutions to how are you suppose to get reliable information. I wonder if the true goal of some people who push equal mistrust of historically standard sources of information is to make it easier for people to lie.
thomasahle 4y ago
Is it also easy to tell if the author is a fraud? Or if the study was designed specifically to get a specific outcome? How do you tell from scihub if an article was funded by a party with affiliated interests?
- vouaobrasil 4y ago
  What you do is not trust a single article. You download about a dozen in the field, including review articles if you can. You look for journal titles and journal rankings. And check whether the authors come from well-known research institutions. Click on the "cited by" link and check the papers that cited them if there are any refutations. Looking through 30-40 papers sounds like a lot but it only takes a couple weeks at most and it's not a lot of work at all if the issue is really important to you.
chasil 4y ago
That being said, with which I have some level of agreement, I have adopted chocolate in this way. I started drinking coffee because I had heard that it was the primary source of antioxidants in the U.S., and I decided to start adding unsweetened cocoa powder to every cup. I get all the health benefits of chocolate this way, but none of the fat or the sugar. The taste is not bad.

themodelplumber 4y ago

The primary literature is a huge waste of time in so many cases though. It can be really frustrating. IF there's not a problem in one of hundreds of representational practices, you can find out later there was some other compromise (and some are HUGE) of the data or methodology. And then if you point out a problem with a research undertaking or study when it is brought up, you can get some set of true-science-believers looking at you like it can't possibly be. It's unreal sometimes. It's really no wonder people spread their subjective experiences as if they are science. Institutional "science" is great as a set of models and perspectives, but when you dip into the product you can start to wonder if you are effectively doing the equivalent of product research by watching the home shopping network.

thrown_22 4y ago
The only people who trust science blindly are those who have never seen how science gets done. It's scientism pure and simple. Or to quote a bunch of people who had a great idea: Nullius In Verba.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  In so much of the world today, "science" is a brand, and everyone is told to listen to "scientists" because they "follow the science" and know the best way. The genpop couldn't possibly even begin to wrap their heads around text written above a 5th grade level, so they are told they need to listen to the "scientists" by "authorities"
  - tintedfireglass 4y ago
    That is due to schools giving importance to memorization over critical thinking skills

themitigating 4y ago

Seems quite difficult. For example in his study the sample size was a problem: "Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result." "A woman’s weight can fluctuate as much as 5 pounds over the course of her menstrual cycle" As a regular person how would I know what the correct sample size for this type of study should be? Remember, that number isn't some fixed value but a range that increases confidence (if I'm using that wrong sorry) and it's all subjective. I would also have to think about the uncontrolled factors, like mensuration, as having an effect since he didn't mention it in the original study. This is far too complicated for the majority of people.

tsol 4y ago
Plus something being proven by a study, even if well done, still doesn't necessarily prove anything. It generally requires replication to confirm. People have this idea that if they find a study that says something and it looks very legit, it must be true. But studies come out and are later found to be flawed or straight up wrong all the time. Primary sources are not a great source of information for most people.
- themitigating 4y ago
  "But studies come out and are later found to be flawed or straight up wrong all the time." I didn't even think of this. You could be looking at a study that turned out to be disproven or even fraudulent (though maybe those are removed from journals). This is why there are experts in particular fields who keep up to date and should be the source. The problem is the current wave of anti-intellectualism which turns everything into black and white easy to digest situation. A person lies once, don't trust them. A newspaper printed one or more articles that turned out to false, don't trust them. Doesn't matter how long ago or how many other truthful articles, they are done. However, like the GP tried, they don't offer any reasonable solutions to how are you suppose to get reliable information. I wonder if the true goal of some people who push equal mistrust of historically standard sources of information is to make it easier for people to lie.

thomasahle 4y ago

Is it also easy to tell if the author is a fraud? Or if the study was designed specifically to get a specific outcome? How do you tell from scihub if an article was funded by a party with affiliated interests?

vouaobrasil 4y ago
What you do is not trust a single article. You download about a dozen in the field, including review articles if you can. You look for journal titles and journal rankings. And check whether the authors come from well-known research institutions. Click on the "cited by" link and check the papers that cited them if there are any refutations. Looking through 30-40 papers sounds like a lot but it only takes a couple weeks at most and it's not a lot of work at all if the issue is really important to you.

chasil 4y ago

That being said, with which I have some level of agreement, I have adopted chocolate in this way. I started drinking coffee because I had heard that it was the primary source of antioxidants in the U.S., and I decided to start adding unsweetened cocoa powder to every cup. I get all the health benefits of chocolate this way, but none of the fat or the sugar. The taste is not bad.