8 ms·

We need to stop doing these pointless studies. Everything is linked to everything, showing it is is a waste of money because (1) we already know and (2) we can

We need to stop doing these pointless studies. Everything is linked to everything, showing it is is a waste of money because (1) we already know and (2) we can't use this info because we don't know what causes what. But people would rather click on these pieces and feel good having their assumptions confirmed that learn and actually improve our society.

xiphias2 3y ago
You're right, it's basically air pollution. We know that air pollution makes people older and kills millions every year, although the exact mechanism is not known (I have lots of health problems because of it, but no good test to show it except bad sleep patterns at places with high air pollution). We also know the solutions: electric cars (I just bought my first), heat pumps with electric heating, and reversing aging.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  Electric cars are still part of the problem, not the solution. They still cause particulate pollution due to brake and tyre dust plus wear on the roads due to excessive weight. And that's not to mention the noise pollution, stress and danger caused by cars. Bicycles are the solution to that particular problem.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Electric cars make it more difficult for other people to adopt low-pollution lifestyles by making the streets more dangerous for those walking or biking, and produce a lot of particulates from the tyres, especially since they're quite heavy. An electric bike, though, is a pretty great choice!
- xorfish 3y ago
  Cars are generally not a mode of transport that makes sense in a city. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority of transportation in a city should be by foot, bicycle or public transport.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  Cars are a big part of the problem, regardless of energy source. Trains, trams, buses, bikes, walking, etc. are the actual solution.
- mrpopo 3y ago
  Electric cars are not a solution (most of the particles come from the brakes, tyres and too many roads instead of vegetation, which blocks wind dust and erosion). Heat pumps or electric heating help solve climate change, not air pollution (it helps a bit if it replaces an old wood stove, but would make things worse if the grid is coal-powered, which is sadly still common). Reversing aging isn't a thing and even if it were, it wouldn't be a solution to anything. Air pollution problems aren't only about physical health but mental health and biodiversity as well. Maybe I don't get the sarcasm.
Swenrekcah 3y ago
People do these studies so that you can then use it to actually improve society by, let's say increase and improve our green spaces. When someone asks you why you're wasting time and money on a silly childish thing like a greener city instead of more asphalt for Business Inc. you can point to this study.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  But we already know green spaces are nice. And this study does not prove anything about them being good for people. Maybe instead of X USD on this study we should have spent that money on an actual green space somewhere...
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    It does in fact increase our evidence that they’re actually good for people beyond being mere perks that some people enjoy.
    - LatteLazy 3y ago
      No, It doesn't. Because it does not show causation. We either prove causation or it's worthless.
      - baanlox 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - 10g1k 3y ago
        Not at all. That's not how science works. A huge percentage of rigorous scientific studies are specifically showing correlations between things. "Correlation doesn't equal causation!" cried the internerds. It doesn't need to. If you've got a set (P) of N people who consume substance X, and N people (Q) who did not consume substance X, and 100% of set P died within half an hour of that act, and 100% of Q are still happy little dandelions, that is an entirely valid scientific finding, and an entirely sufficient reason to stop the supply of substance X.
schrectacular 3y ago
You might enjoy this conversation, which goes into why we get so many papers like this: https://www.econtalk.org/adam-mastroianni-on-peer-review-and-the-academic-kitchen/ https://www.econtalk.org/adam-mastroianni-on-peer-review-and... TLDR; the incentives are all aligned for researchers to do very narrow, marginal work.
vharuck 3y ago
I've been repeating this in my work with statewide health data. The answer to, "Is there a difference in X between group Y and group Z?" is always "Yes." No data collection or significance test needed. If you want to know if being Y or Z affects X, you need a properly controlled experiment. Studies using observational and non-comprehensive data collection have their place. They show reality. If people in one city have an incredibly high rate of dying from heart disease, that means we could reduce premature deaths there. And we'd do that by looking at the results of controlled studies into the causes of heart disease, then see which ones are prevalent and changeable.

xiphias2 3y ago

You're right, it's basically air pollution. We know that air pollution makes people older and kills millions every year, although the exact mechanism is not known (I have lots of health problems because of it, but no good test to show it except bad sleep patterns at places with high air pollution). We also know the solutions: electric cars (I just bought my first), heat pumps with electric heating, and reversing aging.

globular-toast 3y ago
Electric cars are still part of the problem, not the solution. They still cause particulate pollution due to brake and tyre dust plus wear on the roads due to excessive weight. And that's not to mention the noise pollution, stress and danger caused by cars. Bicycles are the solution to that particular problem.
CalRobert 3y ago
Electric cars make it more difficult for other people to adopt low-pollution lifestyles by making the streets more dangerous for those walking or biking, and produce a lot of particulates from the tyres, especially since they're quite heavy. An electric bike, though, is a pretty great choice!
xorfish 3y ago
Cars are generally not a mode of transport that makes sense in a city. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority of transportation in a city should be by foot, bicycle or public transport.
dontlaugh 3y ago
Cars are a big part of the problem, regardless of energy source. Trains, trams, buses, bikes, walking, etc. are the actual solution.
mrpopo 3y ago
Electric cars are not a solution (most of the particles come from the brakes, tyres and too many roads instead of vegetation, which blocks wind dust and erosion). Heat pumps or electric heating help solve climate change, not air pollution (it helps a bit if it replaces an old wood stove, but would make things worse if the grid is coal-powered, which is sadly still common). Reversing aging isn't a thing and even if it were, it wouldn't be a solution to anything. Air pollution problems aren't only about physical health but mental health and biodiversity as well. Maybe I don't get the sarcasm.

Swenrekcah 3y ago

People do these studies so that you can then use it to actually improve society by, let's say increase and improve our green spaces. When someone asks you why you're wasting time and money on a silly childish thing like a greener city instead of more asphalt for Business Inc. you can point to this study.

LatteLazy 3y ago
But we already know green spaces are nice. And this study does not prove anything about them being good for people. Maybe instead of X USD on this study we should have spent that money on an actual green space somewhere...
- ethanbond 3y ago
  It does in fact increase our evidence that they’re actually good for people beyond being mere perks that some people enjoy.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    No, It doesn't. Because it does not show causation. We either prove causation or it's worthless.
    - baanlox 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - 10g1k 3y ago
      Not at all. That's not how science works. A huge percentage of rigorous scientific studies are specifically showing correlations between things. "Correlation doesn't equal causation!" cried the internerds. It doesn't need to. If you've got a set (P) of N people who consume substance X, and N people (Q) who did not consume substance X, and 100% of set P died within half an hour of that act, and 100% of Q are still happy little dandelions, that is an entirely valid scientific finding, and an entirely sufficient reason to stop the supply of substance X.

schrectacular 3y ago

You might enjoy this conversation, which goes into why we get so many papers like this: https://www.econtalk.org/adam-mastroianni-on-peer-review-and-the-academic-kitchen/ https://www.econtalk.org/adam-mastroianni-on-peer-review-and... TLDR; the incentives are all aligned for researchers to do very narrow, marginal work.

vharuck 3y ago

I've been repeating this in my work with statewide health data. The answer to, "Is there a difference in X between group Y and group Z?" is always "Yes." No data collection or significance test needed. If you want to know if being Y or Z affects X, you need a properly controlled experiment. Studies using observational and non-comprehensive data collection have their place. They show reality. If people in one city have an incredibly high rate of dying from heart disease, that means we could reduce premature deaths there. And we'd do that by looking at the results of controlled studies into the causes of heart disease, then see which ones are prevalent and changeable.