7 ms·

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples that are quite obvious but are hard to prove: processed foods are bad, screen time is bad for kids, starship won't fall on a shark etc. But people love to poke holes in obvious truths, especially in well educated spaces like HN.

bloated5048 2y ago
I agree. If we relied on anecdotal evidence more often we'd have resorts on Mars by now.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Assuming you're being sarcastic. I never said anecdotal evidence. And indeed all 3 (first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation) are helping get to space, arguably more than research papers
davisoneee 2y ago
I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation. It could be... - unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence) - unjustified and malicious (this i would consider 'fake') - unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake') - ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and would result in 'true' results if the conditions for replication were better studied and defined) Lots of people like to think themselves smart for following 'first principles'...and then often end up falling in the same ditches. First principles + received wisdom is a bit of a contradiction... if it's 'wisdom' rather than evidence, you are skipping your principles to go with the received starting point...
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  Fake is a good word. "unjustified and sloppy" is fake to me. We have different definitions of fake and shouldn't get hung up on definitions. My last word on it is I should be antagonistic against people who are deciding what goes in my son's school lunch based off of "unjustified and sloppy" studies. First principles + received wisdom are counter balancing, not contradicting. Everything in life is a balance.
  - davisoneee 2y ago
    Definitions matter when it comes discussion, as what you say influences how people feel on a topic. Broad, non-specific definitions leave a lot of space for bias rather than clarity. If you describe it as 'fake', I consider that to give the impression of 'the answer is NOT' this, and could lead to anti-policy. If the description is 'unjustified and sloppy', that can lead to additional research to properly invalidate or potentially find something useful, so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      We have different style. That's OK. Not everyone has to talk like a bureaucrat.
- efitz 2y ago
  The problem is, that as soon as a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, it can be used to justify public policy positions. Then a large number of people will points to the study, or even worse, to press characterizations of what a person thinks the study says, to support their preference on the public policy position. Immediately, anyone who has an alternate position on the public policy will be accused of being a “science denier.” Almost no one is interested in having an honest discussion about whether or not the original paper actually says what it’s characterized to have said, and whether it was a good study in the first place. So nowadays, when public policy is concerned, largely I disregard any scientific study that is introduced to support any position on the policy, and just do my own cost – benefit trade-off to determine my policy position.
mewpmewp2 2y ago
> processed foods are bad Are they? What kind of food is not processed that we should be eating? I think I know what people mean usually when they use this term and like that in a sentence, but this term has always confused me even far into adulthood. Still pointing it out, since I think it's such a bad or misleading term to use.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  "quite obvious but are hard to prove" ... "people love to poke holes in obvious truths, especially in well educated spaces like HN" yes they're bad. It's not confusing, you're just overthinking it.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    According to NHS: A processed food is any food or drink that has been changed in some way when it’s made or prepared. Most foods we eat are processed in some way. Processing can be used to: make foods safe, for example milk is pasteurised to remove harmful bacteria make foods suitable for use, such as pressing seeds to make oil preserve foods or help them last longer, such as tinned or frozen foods change how food tastes, such as adding salt or sweeteners create ready meals and snacks Not all processed foods are unhealthy, but many ultra-processed foods are high in calories, saturated fat, salt or sugar. Eating too many calories, too much saturated fat, salt and sugar, and not enough fruit and vegetables and fibre is not good for you. ---- Like why should processing something make it inherently unhealthy? Do you want to eat raw meat? > people love to poke holes in obvious truths, especially in well educated spaces like HN Someone makes a statement that they say is obvious truth, yet it seems false or misleading. You can't get away by later saying that someone will try to counter this "obvious truth".
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      This is a disingenuous question because you obviously know cooked meat is not what we usually mean by processed food.
cptaj 2y ago
Be careful with this default position. If we start from first principles: - Any one individual is not trained or experienced in the vast majority of scientific disciplines, regardless of his/her expertise in any one field - Even if half the studies published have flaws (where did you get that stat? was that study flawed?), their body of references is filtered by decades of replication and paper ranking of importance - The people doing the studies have decades of study in the particular field they're publishing about Concluding from first principles: Its more likely that a random individual's opinion about a random niche of scientific study will be wrong than that of an individual trained on that niche And then also starting from "received wisdom": Joe Schmuck on the street doesn't know more than scientists about their thing
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  The 3 things I mentioned counterbalance each other. And also notice I didn't say we should get rid of science or scientists. I said we have gone too far in the other direction of disregarding "Joe Schmuck" (or granny), which your comment demonstrates. Also there are lots of Joe Schmucks that know better than a so called "nutritionist" that a steak is better than an Oreo. Not all Joe Schmucks, but a lot of them.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Reading many scientific studies that are done poorly, I am not convinced that you need a lot of formal training in a field to identify bad science. Many frauds and errors are blatantly visible in their data, which should have a given distribution but doesn't, or in their flawed analyses. Many others have several clearly uncontrolled variables (hint: if it's not in the paper, they didn't control it). People of a given field will also often circle the wagons around bad actors to protect their own jobs and reputations. This introduces a very strong bias in the people who should be the most highly-informed on their own subject, and sadly makes them less trustworthy than people like Data Colada (https://datacolada.org/ https://datacolada.org/) who go beyond their own fields.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  I did stats and applied research so I basically got to read papers as my full time job, then go home and read papers as a hobby. Most fields are really bad at stats which is one thing that is pervasive across just about all science. More than half of science wouldn’t exist without some sort of fraud, clear selection bias, or p-hacking. It’s to the point that one sure way to lose friends and be shunned in academia is to be good at statistics. It’s like the plagiarism scandal, academics have been getting away with it for so long it’s become normalized. It used to be that plagiarism would be the absolute end of any academic career. Now some academics are arguing for an amnesty on the basis that everyone did it and others are ignoring it. Edit: I should point out like the other commenter that a lot of the fraudulent data is laughably blatant. Like pulled ‘random’ numbers straight from their head, not even using any type of random number generator. Or pulling random numbers from wrong distribution. Or not using realistic noise etc.
dvh 2y ago
Who was second team on everest? Who was second to land on the moon?
zzbzq 2y ago
I claim "processed food" isn't even a cogent concept.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  I claim "concept" isn't even a cogent concept. In fact I claim "cogent" isn't even a cogent concept How about "claim"? See how these definitional arguments become un-useful and boring?
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    I know the "processed food" thing is the heap paradox because the amount of processing isn't naturally a binary, but what are your "let's just substitute a different word here" claims based on?
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      "When do grains of sand become a heap" is a good analogue to it. "what are your "let's just substitute a different word here" claims based on?" Being annoyed that even when the comment is "people love to poke holes in obvious truths, especially in well educated spaces like HN." HN commenters begin to poke holes in an obvious truth- that there even is such a thing as processed foods. It'd be like arguing that heaps of sand don't exist because it's not "cogent concept"
ch4s3 2y ago
Wouldn't you expect that given enough experiments, you'll have some number of well done experiments that just have weird sample groups? It's well known that if you go fishing in large populations you'll find associations that disappear if you do repeated studies with different subjects. There's clearly a bias to publish interesting results, so it seems natural to expect a lot of interesting findings to not be replicable, even if the study is carefully done and there's no ill intent.
johnea 2y ago
The space lasers guiding hurricanes along the chem-trails is totally real! Just ask anyone in the braintrust states...

bloated5048 2y ago

I agree. If we relied on anecdotal evidence more often we'd have resorts on Mars by now.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Assuming you're being sarcastic. I never said anecdotal evidence. And indeed all 3 (first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation) are helping get to space, arguably more than research papers

davisoneee 2y ago

I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation. It could be... - unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence) - unjustified and malicious (this i would consider 'fake') - unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake') - ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and would result in 'true' results if the conditions for replication were better studied and defined) Lots of people like to think themselves smart for following 'first principles'...and then often end up falling in the same ditches. First principles + received wisdom is a bit of a contradiction... if it's 'wisdom' rather than evidence, you are skipping your principles to go with the received starting point...

cynicalpeace 2y ago
Fake is a good word. "unjustified and sloppy" is fake to me. We have different definitions of fake and shouldn't get hung up on definitions. My last word on it is I should be antagonistic against people who are deciding what goes in my son's school lunch based off of "unjustified and sloppy" studies. First principles + received wisdom are counter balancing, not contradicting. Everything in life is a balance.
- davisoneee 2y ago
  Definitions matter when it comes discussion, as what you say influences how people feel on a topic. Broad, non-specific definitions leave a lot of space for bias rather than clarity. If you describe it as 'fake', I consider that to give the impression of 'the answer is NOT' this, and could lead to anti-policy. If the description is 'unjustified and sloppy', that can lead to additional research to properly invalidate or potentially find something useful, so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    We have different style. That's OK. Not everyone has to talk like a bureaucrat.
efitz 2y ago
The problem is, that as soon as a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, it can be used to justify public policy positions. Then a large number of people will points to the study, or even worse, to press characterizations of what a person thinks the study says, to support their preference on the public policy position. Immediately, anyone who has an alternate position on the public policy will be accused of being a “science denier.” Almost no one is interested in having an honest discussion about whether or not the original paper actually says what it’s characterized to have said, and whether it was a good study in the first place. So nowadays, when public policy is concerned, largely I disregard any scientific study that is introduced to support any position on the policy, and just do my own cost – benefit trade-off to determine my policy position.

mewpmewp2 2y ago

> processed foods are bad Are they? What kind of food is not processed that we should be eating? I think I know what people mean usually when they use this term and like that in a sentence, but this term has always confused me even far into adulthood. Still pointing it out, since I think it's such a bad or misleading term to use.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
"quite obvious but are hard to prove" ... "people love to poke holes in obvious truths, especially in well educated spaces like HN" yes they're bad. It's not confusing, you're just overthinking it.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  According to NHS: A processed food is any food or drink that has been changed in some way when it’s made or prepared. Most foods we eat are processed in some way. Processing can be used to: make foods safe, for example milk is pasteurised to remove harmful bacteria make foods suitable for use, such as pressing seeds to make oil preserve foods or help them last longer, such as tinned or frozen foods change how food tastes, such as adding salt or sweeteners create ready meals and snacks Not all processed foods are unhealthy, but many ultra-processed foods are high in calories, saturated fat, salt or sugar. Eating too many calories, too much saturated fat, salt and sugar, and not enough fruit and vegetables and fibre is not good for you. ---- Like why should processing something make it inherently unhealthy? Do you want to eat raw meat? > people love to poke holes in obvious truths, especially in well educated spaces like HN Someone makes a statement that they say is obvious truth, yet it seems false or misleading. You can't get away by later saying that someone will try to counter this "obvious truth".
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    This is a disingenuous question because you obviously know cooked meat is not what we usually mean by processed food.

cptaj 2y ago

Be careful with this default position. If we start from first principles: - Any one individual is not trained or experienced in the vast majority of scientific disciplines, regardless of his/her expertise in any one field - Even if half the studies published have flaws (where did you get that stat? was that study flawed?), their body of references is filtered by decades of replication and paper ranking of importance - The people doing the studies have decades of study in the particular field they're publishing about Concluding from first principles: Its more likely that a random individual's opinion about a random niche of scientific study will be wrong than that of an individual trained on that niche And then also starting from "received wisdom": Joe Schmuck on the street doesn't know more than scientists about their thing

cynicalpeace 2y ago
The 3 things I mentioned counterbalance each other. And also notice I didn't say we should get rid of science or scientists. I said we have gone too far in the other direction of disregarding "Joe Schmuck" (or granny), which your comment demonstrates. Also there are lots of Joe Schmucks that know better than a so called "nutritionist" that a steak is better than an Oreo. Not all Joe Schmucks, but a lot of them.
pclmulqdq 2y ago
Reading many scientific studies that are done poorly, I am not convinced that you need a lot of formal training in a field to identify bad science. Many frauds and errors are blatantly visible in their data, which should have a given distribution but doesn't, or in their flawed analyses. Many others have several clearly uncontrolled variables (hint: if it's not in the paper, they didn't control it). People of a given field will also often circle the wagons around bad actors to protect their own jobs and reputations. This introduces a very strong bias in the people who should be the most highly-informed on their own subject, and sadly makes them less trustworthy than people like Data Colada (https://datacolada.org/ https://datacolada.org/) who go beyond their own fields.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
I did stats and applied research so I basically got to read papers as my full time job, then go home and read papers as a hobby. Most fields are really bad at stats which is one thing that is pervasive across just about all science. More than half of science wouldn’t exist without some sort of fraud, clear selection bias, or p-hacking. It’s to the point that one sure way to lose friends and be shunned in academia is to be good at statistics. It’s like the plagiarism scandal, academics have been getting away with it for so long it’s become normalized. It used to be that plagiarism would be the absolute end of any academic career. Now some academics are arguing for an amnesty on the basis that everyone did it and others are ignoring it. Edit: I should point out like the other commenter that a lot of the fraudulent data is laughably blatant. Like pulled ‘random’ numbers straight from their head, not even using any type of random number generator. Or pulling random numbers from wrong distribution. Or not using realistic noise etc.

dvh 2y ago

Who was second team on everest? Who was second to land on the moon?

zzbzq 2y ago

I claim "processed food" isn't even a cogent concept.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
I claim "concept" isn't even a cogent concept. In fact I claim "cogent" isn't even a cogent concept How about "claim"? See how these definitional arguments become un-useful and boring?
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  I know the "processed food" thing is the heap paradox because the amount of processing isn't naturally a binary, but what are your "let's just substitute a different word here" claims based on?
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    "When do grains of sand become a heap" is a good analogue to it. "what are your "let's just substitute a different word here" claims based on?" Being annoyed that even when the comment is "people love to poke holes in obvious truths, especially in well educated spaces like HN." HN commenters begin to poke holes in an obvious truth- that there even is such a thing as processed foods. It'd be like arguing that heaps of sand don't exist because it's not "cogent concept"

ch4s3 2y ago

Wouldn't you expect that given enough experiments, you'll have some number of well done experiments that just have weird sample groups? It's well known that if you go fishing in large populations you'll find associations that disappear if you do repeated studies with different subjects. There's clearly a bias to publish interesting results, so it seems natural to expect a lot of interesting findings to not be replicable, even if the study is carefully done and there's no ill intent.

johnea 2y ago

The space lasers guiding hurricanes along the chem-trails is totally real! Just ask anyone in the braintrust states...