3 ms·
> There’s an extremely toxic (and ironically very anti-scientific) culture of “study says it so it’s true” that permeates medical and scientific fields I have
by marcuskane2 2y ago
> There’s an extremely toxic (and ironically very anti-scientific) culture of “study says it so it’s true” that permeates medical and scientific fields
I have never witnessed this in real life. Every actual PhD and MD I've ever interacted with are cautious about over-reliance on a single study and particularly if a result is surprising will view it with extreme skepticism if the study has any flaws.
> and the reporting thereof
Sure. 99% of journalists don't know any science beyond their C in high school basic science, and they're rewarded for views and engagement, not accuracy, so they'll hype up any study. Especially ones that are provocative or engaging for general audiences.
There is a huge, huge, huge difference between the editors at Nature and the talking heads at CNN. Or between research scientists and twitter commenters.
- jl6 2y ago> I have never witnessed this in real life. It is extremely common in the practice of citations. What you see written in a paper is: “Intervention X can help patients with condition Y (Smith, 2012)” But when you actually read Smith the result is couched in limitations, or maybe only holds under some circumstances, or maybe uses a weak methodology that would have been fine for Smith but isn’t appropriate for the current paper. There just isn’t room in that sentence to reflect the full complexity, and the simplified version is all too easy to slip through peer review. Sometimes papers form chains and networks of oversimplification with each citation compounding unwarranted certainty.
- stogot 2y agoThis. There’s no way to evaluate citations at scale. Further, once a medical doctor “learns” a false fact, it’s hard to unlearn it and journals rarely publish contrarian material
- rpnx 2y agoThis is the root of the problem. Take the whole "saturated fat is unhealthy" thing. Here's what happened: Study finds that unsaturated fat is healthier than saturated fat, but all fat is associated with lower mortality vs carbs. Repeated as "unsaturated fat is healther than saturated fat". Repeated as "saturated fat is unhealthy". This conclusion isn't supported by any research compared to carbs(!). Same-calorie diet of high fat is healthier than one based on carbs. But we are often taught otherwise. The saturated fat is bad (wrong) consensus is reached like a game of telephone.
- Log_out_ 2y agobasically saturated fats are the hostage of any high carb (fried and sugary) diet?
- cdaringe 2y agoAny recommendations for course correction? Perhaps paper linting/scoring that penalizes assertive statements linked to references vs direct quotes associated with references?
- sirspacey 2y agoEverything becomes a meme. I’ve come to appreciate that we communicate mimetically, humans now seem to me more a social-intelligence species than an intelligent one. We don’t seem to win by fighting against this characteristic, so I’m getting more curious about how to adapt to/with it.
- etbebl 2y agoIt's true, this type of nuance usually doesn't make it into papers for every paper they cite (otherwise, they would be 10x as long), but ime researchers take every study with a grain of salt in real life. I guess someone whose only interaction with science is through reading research papers would never know this and have the impression that many questions are much more settled than they actually are (although there are also opinion and review papers that attempt to assess the actual state of evidence at a given point in time).
- QuantumGood 2y agoSufficient reproducibility should be required, but the "cautiousness" when it IS there often remains. Examples of this more emotional resistance from MDs and PhDs that come to mind include: • Helicobacter pylori and Peptic Ulcers • The Eply Maneuver • Handwashing for Infection Control