3 ms·
The mistake is trying to to scry personal life guidance out of research papers. Research papers just describe experimental results, and sometimes unsound ones.
by swatcoder 3y ago
The mistake is trying to to scry personal life guidance out of research papers. Research papers just describe experimental results, and sometimes unsound ones.
They're meant to feed further research and bring prestige to the authors, not to help intellectuals hyperoptimize their longevity or whatever.
It's a widespread mistake, especially among intellectuals who take pride in being able to read jargon, but what you're calling "impossible to deal with" is actually just the outcome of trying to use things in a way they're not meant to be used.
If you really want guidance (you actually don't need much), either look to traditions if you're comfortable with that or turn to institutional guidelines if you want something that feels more evidence-based and modern. Neither of those is unassailable either, but at least then you're using things as intended. You'll have less grief and frustration that way.
Which is probably good for you.
- smrtinsert 3y agoUpvoted to raise awareness. The average DYOR type is lacking a lot of context with regard to research goals and process. There aren't absolutes, there are snapshots or milestones of understanding given specific criteria - at best.
- bratwurst3000 3y agoThis comment sums up so many problems with the interpretation of science so good. Thanks
- sundarurfriend 3y ago> turn to institutional guidelines if you want something that feels more evidence-based and modern. "feels" is the right word here, unfortunately. Often, these are heavily out of date, influenced by power struggles inside the institutions and by external incentives, and get watered down by the need for generality and for avoiding liability. So the average person is left with very little to go by, which is why people either flock to study after study, choose "bro science" instead, or just stick to traditions even in places where they're not helpful.
- agumonkey 3y agothere's a strange phenomenon when you try to dig deeper than current accepted textbooks and read pubmed, you end up in less certainty. Science behave like a lens, validated data (yet about to be obsolete potentially) is in focus, illogical is fuzzy, but unproven is fuzzy too.