4 ms·

This is obnoxious. You cannot disprove a scientific study by pointing at who funded it, and a properly constructed one won't be able to hide bad results since i

This is obnoxious. You cannot disprove a scientific study by pointing at who funded it, and a properly constructed one won't be able to hide bad results since it'd be preregistered.

glimshe 3y ago
He doesn't have the burden of disproving it, the study has the burden of proving its claims. I consider studies funded by an interested party as weak evidence at best - perhaps enough to encourage an independent party to conduct another study.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  > perhaps enough to encourage an independent party to conduct another study. Is that an option that’s on the table? Or do we have to take the information we’re able to get and just interpret it critically?
  - astrange 3y ago
    I think people do crowdfunding for studies sometimes, but doing it just for a replication sounds like a waste.
- DeIlliad 3y ago
  Proving or disproving a claim is the purpose of a study. At this point, it's out of the researchers hands and up to other research teams to replicate the research and confirm or deny the results.
- astrange 3y ago
  All medicines in the US are approved using studies funded by the company that submitted them. There's a simple reason for that - nobody else would care enough to do it. If you can't read a study well enough to tell if the methods it uses are good, that's your problem.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    Even a study that never took place could specify methods that look great on paper. You pretty much have to repeat the study yourself to see whether you get the same results. All studies like this are "believe us when we say that we did this, and observed that". If you're paid by X, and the result is favorable to X, then I don't believe you as much.
thsksbd 3y ago
No, you cant disprove a study by the source of funding;Truth doesnt care who funds it. But its also not obnoxious not to be helplessly naive that you don't scrutinize sources using effective heuristics.
- astrange 3y ago
  It's not an effective heuristic. Overly online cynical people are just obsessed with the idea that everything is a conspiracy that can be undone by "following the money". Bad science reporting is common, but it's more common for the reporters to just misread what a study says. Besides, this is nutrition science, where what's actually happening is scientists are conspiring against big ice cream by refusing to tell you that it's good for you. (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cream-bad-for-you-health-study/673487/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cre...)
- hulitu 3y ago
  > No, you cant disprove a study by the source of funding;Truth doesnt care who funds it. But the lie does care.
kazinator 3y ago
Yes you can. Identification of a conflict-of-interest bias is different from argumentum ad hominem.

This is obnoxious. You cannot disprove a scientific study by pointing at who funded it, and a properly constructed one won't be able to hide bad results since it'd be preregistered.

glimshe 3y ago

He doesn't have the burden of disproving it, the study has the burden of proving its claims. I consider studies funded by an interested party as weak evidence at best - perhaps enough to encourage an independent party to conduct another study.

ethanbond 3y ago
> perhaps enough to encourage an independent party to conduct another study. Is that an option that’s on the table? Or do we have to take the information we’re able to get and just interpret it critically?
- astrange 3y ago
  I think people do crowdfunding for studies sometimes, but doing it just for a replication sounds like a waste.
DeIlliad 3y ago
Proving or disproving a claim is the purpose of a study. At this point, it's out of the researchers hands and up to other research teams to replicate the research and confirm or deny the results.
astrange 3y ago
All medicines in the US are approved using studies funded by the company that submitted them. There's a simple reason for that - nobody else would care enough to do it. If you can't read a study well enough to tell if the methods it uses are good, that's your problem.
- kazinator 3y ago
  Even a study that never took place could specify methods that look great on paper. You pretty much have to repeat the study yourself to see whether you get the same results. All studies like this are "believe us when we say that we did this, and observed that". If you're paid by X, and the result is favorable to X, then I don't believe you as much.

thsksbd 3y ago

No, you cant disprove a study by the source of funding;Truth doesnt care who funds it. But its also not obnoxious not to be helplessly naive that you don't scrutinize sources using effective heuristics.

astrange 3y ago
It's not an effective heuristic. Overly online cynical people are just obsessed with the idea that everything is a conspiracy that can be undone by "following the money". Bad science reporting is common, but it's more common for the reporters to just misread what a study says. Besides, this is nutrition science, where what's actually happening is scientists are conspiring against big ice cream by refusing to tell you that it's good for you. (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cream-bad-for-you-health-study/673487/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cre...)
hulitu 3y ago
> No, you cant disprove a study by the source of funding;Truth doesnt care who funds it. But the lie does care.

kazinator 3y ago

Yes you can. Identification of a conflict-of-interest bias is different from argumentum ad hominem.