3 ms·

Scientific consensus is built up around a body work. It is only really in modern times that laymen have started reading scientific articles, and usually only on

by Maxion 3y ago

Scientific consensus is built up around a body work. It is only really in modern times that laymen have started reading scientific articles, and usually only one here or one there. There is no perfect scientific study, if you critique all of them to the point you critique this one, you will dismiss more-or-less all science. Scientists who study the effects of various forever chemicals on health have read hundres of studies on the matter. And from those scientists I've talked to the overall consensus is definitely leaning towards these so-called forever chemicals having associations strong enough towards negative health outcomes that it's worthwhile to keep looking.

bschne 3y ago
> Scientific consensus is built up around a body work Yes, and that process is supposed to include judging the merit of the individual studies that make up the body of work. A hundred shoddy papers don't make a convincing body of work all of a sudden, they make a pile of inconclusive trash. I'm not disagreeing with the consensus you point at, I wouldn't know, but you can't use "consensus arises from a body of work" to argue inclusion of anything in that body of work.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  When confronted with a pile of shit, one should not conclude there's a pony in there somewhere.
ckastner 3y ago
> There is no perfect scientific study, if you critique all of them to the point you critique this one, you will dismiss more-or-less all science. It doesn't have to be perfect, it has to convincingly (to some degree) reject the null hypothesis, as per GP's own words. And that doesn't dismiss more-or-less all science, it more or less sets the lower bar for what constitutes science in the first place.
lallysingh 3y ago
If I shit in a box and give it to you saying "here's evidence of something you believe is likely true," the right response isn't "that's progress," it's "stop shitting in boxes and giving them to people."
tqi 3y ago
But does this even get published if the results are neutral?

by Maxion 3y ago

bschne 3y ago

> Scientific consensus is built up around a body work Yes, and that process is supposed to include judging the merit of the individual studies that make up the body of work. A hundred shoddy papers don't make a convincing body of work all of a sudden, they make a pile of inconclusive trash. I'm not disagreeing with the consensus you point at, I wouldn't know, but you can't use "consensus arises from a body of work" to argue inclusion of anything in that body of work.

pfdietz 3y ago
When confronted with a pile of shit, one should not conclude there's a pony in there somewhere.

ckastner 3y ago

> There is no perfect scientific study, if you critique all of them to the point you critique this one, you will dismiss more-or-less all science. It doesn't have to be perfect, it has to convincingly (to some degree) reject the null hypothesis, as per GP's own words. And that doesn't dismiss more-or-less all science, it more or less sets the lower bar for what constitutes science in the first place.

lallysingh 3y ago

If I shit in a box and give it to you saying "here's evidence of something you believe is likely true," the right response isn't "that's progress," it's "stop shitting in boxes and giving them to people."

tqi 3y ago

But does this even get published if the results are neutral?