5 ms·
All of them? That worked well for Alzheimer research, didn’t it
by bdisl 1y ago
All of them? That worked well for Alzheimer research, didn’t it
- thinkingtoilet 1y agoObviously not all of them. And obviously there is corruption and mistakes with anything involving humans. What's so funny is that when people make criticisms like this, they always leave out the alternative. What's the alternative? Trusting mostly uneducated influencers and quacks who do even less research and don't even attempt peer review?
- bdisl 1y agoThe alternative is not trusting the science or the quacks.
- blackbear_ 1y agoMost people cannot tell those apart...
- bdisl 1y agoAnd those who are not supposed to be quacks will commit fraud anyway. Which is why you shouldn’t trust anyone.
- pixl97 1y agoGood idea, trust no one, get nothing. Why not move back into a cave and stab your own meat with a sharpened stick next.
- _9ptr 1y agoAt least we wouldn't have Alzheimer
- thinkingtoilet 1y agoI'm sure if, god forbid, you were diagnosed with a curable cancer you wouldn't go "trust the science" and go get treatment. I'm really sure you would do that.
- searine 1y agoExcept it did? Fraud was identified. Science moved forward. Literally working as intended.
- teddyh 1y agoYou can say that of all cases of fraud, but that’s a survivorship bias fallacy, since we can only talk about cases we know to be fradulent, i.e. where fraud has been identified.