4 ms·

I don't think it's fair to outright dismiss it because it is not a systematic/empirical study (and the author explicitly mention that). In the case of posture,

I don't think it's fair to outright dismiss it because it is not a systematic/empirical study (and the author explicitly mention that). In the case of posture, stretching & training I think there's several exercises out there that doesn't have a rigorous empirical study to back it up, yet can be explained to be good/bad from our anatomical understanding of the human body.

lazyasciiart 3y ago
Well, unfortunately in this article there are claims that can be explained to be completely false from our anatomical understanding of the human body - such as the idea that it is impossible to snore with your mouth closed.
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  I thought the 'impossible to snore' note was because of the downwards spine position, where the soft palate cannot collapse. Not because the mouth is closed.
RamblingCTO 3y ago
> I don't think it's fair to outright dismiss it because it is not a systematic/empirical study That's how science works. Show sources/data/experiments or gtfo
- roenxi 3y ago
  Science requires a level of common sense and intuition. Famously: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 It is fine, indeed should be encouraged, to put some papers in the system that don't have formal data but do record common-sense observations. If people don't like them, then they can trump opinion with data in the scientific process.
- 0xEF 3y ago
  Don't forget the "repeat" part. Sources and data are great, but if they can't be replicated by others, the it's not verifiable.
- NalNezumi 3y ago
  That's how some steps of the science work, specifically the empirical studies. Empirical validation, falsifiability, and repeatability is all in that ball-park. But it's a part of the process and not all of it. If that's the only thing you want to consider, sure. As a layman it's probably a good principle, and more so in engineering. But you'll have to shave off some significant works of science from history if you do that. You can read more about those steps at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- mo_42 3y ago
  Einstein and Higgs predicted phenomena that were tested years resp. decades after their publication. A theory is also a contribution to a field as long as it tested (not necessarily in the same publication). Even an observation to a field can be a contribution if it helps people generate new theories and then test them.
  - guappa 3y ago
    In their defence: building a particle accelerator is a harder and more costly task than watching people sleep.
- chillingeffect 3y ago
  Experiments are the part people fixate on. Science begins with observation.
  - RamblingCTO 3y ago
    Yes. But just publishing your observations is not enough. And this seems to be a published paper, which I find very weird.
    - diydsp 3y ago
      First, you might want to refresh your understanding of the scientific process. Its first step is "Observation/question." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Next, the acceptability of journal papers without conclusive experiments varies across fields. In some fields, such as observational sciences (e.g., astronomy, ecology, sociology), observational studies are common and valuable contributions to the literature. These studies often involve collecting and analyzing data from real-world observations, surveys, or existing datasets without the need for controlled experiments. In such cases, it is perfectly acceptable to publish papers based solely on observational data. When you say, "is not enough," the question I respond with is "enough for what?" It's fully acceptable to publish a paper with observations in order to stimulate interest and encourage further research in the area. It's not necessary for a journal to require final results. Finally, consider some of these famous and important papers which were published as observations without conclusive results. Should they have held back and waited until conclusive results were available? 1. Edwin Hubble's "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" 2. Albert Einstein's "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" 3. Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"
      - RamblingCTO 3y ago
        And how old are these publications? And did you have a look at the paper that we're talking about?
        3y ago

lazyasciiart 3y ago

Well, unfortunately in this article there are claims that can be explained to be completely false from our anatomical understanding of the human body - such as the idea that it is impossible to snore with your mouth closed.

ricardobeat 3y ago
I thought the 'impossible to snore' note was because of the downwards spine position, where the soft palate cannot collapse. Not because the mouth is closed.

RamblingCTO 3y ago

> I don't think it's fair to outright dismiss it because it is not a systematic/empirical study That's how science works. Show sources/data/experiments or gtfo

roenxi 3y ago
Science requires a level of common sense and intuition. Famously: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 It is fine, indeed should be encouraged, to put some papers in the system that don't have formal data but do record common-sense observations. If people don't like them, then they can trump opinion with data in the scientific process.
0xEF 3y ago
Don't forget the "repeat" part. Sources and data are great, but if they can't be replicated by others, the it's not verifiable.
NalNezumi 3y ago
That's how some steps of the science work, specifically the empirical studies. Empirical validation, falsifiability, and repeatability is all in that ball-park. But it's a part of the process and not all of it. If that's the only thing you want to consider, sure. As a layman it's probably a good principle, and more so in engineering. But you'll have to shave off some significant works of science from history if you do that. You can read more about those steps at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
mo_42 3y ago
Einstein and Higgs predicted phenomena that were tested years resp. decades after their publication. A theory is also a contribution to a field as long as it tested (not necessarily in the same publication). Even an observation to a field can be a contribution if it helps people generate new theories and then test them.
- guappa 3y ago
  In their defence: building a particle accelerator is a harder and more costly task than watching people sleep.
chillingeffect 3y ago
Experiments are the part people fixate on. Science begins with observation.
- RamblingCTO 3y ago
  Yes. But just publishing your observations is not enough. And this seems to be a published paper, which I find very weird.
  - diydsp 3y ago
    First, you might want to refresh your understanding of the scientific process. Its first step is "Observation/question." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Next, the acceptability of journal papers without conclusive experiments varies across fields. In some fields, such as observational sciences (e.g., astronomy, ecology, sociology), observational studies are common and valuable contributions to the literature. These studies often involve collecting and analyzing data from real-world observations, surveys, or existing datasets without the need for controlled experiments. In such cases, it is perfectly acceptable to publish papers based solely on observational data. When you say, "is not enough," the question I respond with is "enough for what?" It's fully acceptable to publish a paper with observations in order to stimulate interest and encourage further research in the area. It's not necessary for a journal to require final results. Finally, consider some of these famous and important papers which were published as observations without conclusive results. Should they have held back and waited until conclusive results were available? 1. Edwin Hubble's "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" 2. Albert Einstein's "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" 3. Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"
    - RamblingCTO 3y ago
      And how old are these publications? And did you have a look at the paper that we're talking about?
      - 3y ago