3 ms·

I hate when these researchers don't stick to the rationally implied conclusions. "We see no correlation" is the rationally implied conclusion of the research.

I hate when these researchers don't stick to the rationally implied conclusions. "We see no correlation" is the rationally implied conclusion of the research. "Maybe it's affluence" is not science, at that point the researcher became just-some-guy(gal?) throwin' out his theories.

wuliwong 13y ago
I absolutely agree. I would also add that as scientists we have the ability to shape opinions because our statements tend to be taken as fact (whether or not we are speaking about our field of research). With this comes a responsibility to be honest and transparent, a responsibility which is shirked all too often. The idea that this study is somehow the end of the discussion and it is now "proven" that Omega-3 fats don't help curb memory loss is laughable.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Finster 13y ago
It's common when writing a scientific paper to write opinions like that. "We showed there is no correlation. Possible explanations for past correlation may be..." It's not just some guy throwing theories against a wall to see what sticks. It's someone who has studied this exact topic for many months or years.
- wuliwong 13y ago
  Yea, I see your point. I think I'm more annoyed by the title which greatly overstates the implications of the study.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  Exactly. Speculation from someone who is entrenched in the study of a subject is very valuable. Is it not speculation that leads to further investigation and eventually a scientific study? Educated guesses is just as much a part of science as doing an actual controlled study.
  - Arnor 13y ago
    Yes, but then the news media steps in and claims that the gods of science have spoken. Then if this article gets refuted a year or two down the road, the damage is done because the public moved on.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      So, fix the media. Don't whine about the scientists.
- jasallen 13y ago
  Pundit and research scientist are different roles, however. Yes, his punditry may be more informed than most other's, but the lines would be kept cleaner if the punditry didn't come out when formally addressing the research. It's a fine topic for future research, but until that future project comes, I'd rather see it kept separate from the formal project conclusions.
codemonkeymike 13y ago
It's called confirmation bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
- ignostic 13y ago
  That's really stretching the meaning. It's more like "guessing" than it is "confirmation bias."

wuliwong 13y ago

I absolutely agree. I would also add that as scientists we have the ability to shape opinions because our statements tend to be taken as fact (whether or not we are speaking about our field of research). With this comes a responsibility to be honest and transparent, a responsibility which is shirked all too often. The idea that this study is somehow the end of the discussion and it is now "proven" that Omega-3 fats don't help curb memory loss is laughable.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Finster 13y ago

It's common when writing a scientific paper to write opinions like that. "We showed there is no correlation. Possible explanations for past correlation may be..." It's not just some guy throwing theories against a wall to see what sticks. It's someone who has studied this exact topic for many months or years.

wuliwong 13y ago
Yea, I see your point. I think I'm more annoyed by the title which greatly overstates the implications of the study.
hackinthebochs 13y ago
Exactly. Speculation from someone who is entrenched in the study of a subject is very valuable. Is it not speculation that leads to further investigation and eventually a scientific study? Educated guesses is just as much a part of science as doing an actual controlled study.
- Arnor 13y ago
  Yes, but then the news media steps in and claims that the gods of science have spoken. Then if this article gets refuted a year or two down the road, the damage is done because the public moved on.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    So, fix the media. Don't whine about the scientists.
jasallen 13y ago
Pundit and research scientist are different roles, however. Yes, his punditry may be more informed than most other's, but the lines would be kept cleaner if the punditry didn't come out when formally addressing the research. It's a fine topic for future research, but until that future project comes, I'd rather see it kept separate from the formal project conclusions.

codemonkeymike 13y ago

It's called confirmation bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

ignostic 13y ago
That's really stretching the meaning. It's more like "guessing" than it is "confirmation bias."