4 ms·

No surprise. Most "scientific" studies in the realm of medicine are bullshit. Even many of the ones trying hard not to be bullshit still end up in that bin. For

by jblow 12y ago

No surprise. Most "scientific" studies in the realm of medicine are bullshit. Even many of the ones trying hard not to be bullshit still end up in that bin. For a clear understanding of why, read this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou...

md224 12y ago
Do you think this attitude explains some of the epistemological issues behind the anti-vaccine movement? I'm pro-vaccination, but I find it weird when people mock others for not believing vaccines are safe and then go on to criticize GMOs and the validity of nutritional studies. (Not saying you're doing this at all, this is just a tangent.) Of course, vaccine studies are probably way more rigorous and easier to control than figuring out the complexities of nutrition, but it is a little unsettling how easily doubt can metastasize. There's really no solution here other than trying to spread scientific literacy and helping people understand the rigorous testing of modern medicine, while also encouraging them to think twice about the sensationalized studies they read.
- chc 12y ago
  As far as I can tell, the epistemological origin of the antivax movement is the human drive to find a reason for things that happen. There was never a scientific basis. They latched onto one study that suggested a link between vaccines and autism, but it's not like they had some sophisticated meta-analysis that led them to believe that study was more reliable than others. It just provided a narrative that gave them the answer they were seeking, while the alternative did not. There could hypothetically have been a basis like the one you're talking about, but it seems evident from the movement itself that this didn't happen in our version of reality.
  - md224 12y ago
    Of course, but a lack of trust in the medical establishment is probably an enabling factor. If they trusted their doctors to make the right decisions for their children, they probably wouldn't be buying into Wakefield's study or quoting Jenny McCarthy. Clearly there is fear and a human desire for easy answers, but I think lack of trust is also a big part of it.
  - saurik 12y ago
    > There was never a scientific basis. That's the point: that we have trained people to distrust science because most of the "results" people are exposed to are bad popular articles reporting on sketchy studies from Psychology and Medicine that tend to be "overthrown" every few years: it is difficult to go to people and say "no, seriously: vaccines work" when they can retort "that's what you said about red wine, and just today I read an article about how that was all bunk... in another few years everyone is going to be sorry they listened to you guys about these vaccine things you all love so much". :(
    - eshvk 12y ago
      > That's the point: that we have trained people to distrust science I am not sure science is an article of faith to be trusted or not. Science is a continuous process of reviewing evidence and making hypothesis based on that evidence. It is not a mathematical proof. Sure, there are "bad popular articles" that describe causal relations enthusiastically. However, the pipeline of bullshit flows backwards too. There are enough research papers out there where results may not be fudged but over enthusiastic language may be used that can to the layman's eye look like magic.
      - saurik 12y ago
        Science is one part process and one part people: you first have to trust the process to provide useful evidence, and you second have to trust the people to tell you what they did honestly. Psychology and Medicine are "problem fields" in both areas: the process itself runs into ethical challenges that result in very few real "experiments" (leading to lots of correlations with difficult hidden variables, nothing at all like "causal relations"), and the people involved in the reporting process are also much more likely to blow things out of proportion as these are areas of extremely broad interest. The result is that when Geophysics says something important the general populace doesn't believe them (hence why "trust" is the right word to be using here) because their mental model of Science is built out of "scientists" making lots of firm contradictory statements, and especially many situations they remember where what was said just a few years ago was entirely "overthrown" by the new research of the week. If you actually listen to the people who refuse to believe in things like vaccines or climate change, they seem to just think scientists are silly people who think they know more than they actually do :(.
xmonkee 12y ago
Dayum, that's one of the best articles I've read in a really long time. I think we are still decades away from really understanding experimenter effect, and till then, I take all medical studies with a fucten of salt. Example: I used to be really into reading large meta-analysis dietary supplement efficacy, but lately I've stopped taking all supps. They changed consensus on plenty of them in front my very eyes, and I kinda lost faith in the field.

by jblow 12y ago

md224 12y ago

Do you think this attitude explains some of the epistemological issues behind the anti-vaccine movement? I'm pro-vaccination, but I find it weird when people mock others for not believing vaccines are safe and then go on to criticize GMOs and the validity of nutritional studies. (Not saying you're doing this at all, this is just a tangent.) Of course, vaccine studies are probably way more rigorous and easier to control than figuring out the complexities of nutrition, but it is a little unsettling how easily doubt can metastasize. There's really no solution here other than trying to spread scientific literacy and helping people understand the rigorous testing of modern medicine, while also encouraging them to think twice about the sensationalized studies they read.

chc 12y ago
As far as I can tell, the epistemological origin of the antivax movement is the human drive to find a reason for things that happen. There was never a scientific basis. They latched onto one study that suggested a link between vaccines and autism, but it's not like they had some sophisticated meta-analysis that led them to believe that study was more reliable than others. It just provided a narrative that gave them the answer they were seeking, while the alternative did not. There could hypothetically have been a basis like the one you're talking about, but it seems evident from the movement itself that this didn't happen in our version of reality.
- md224 12y ago
  Of course, but a lack of trust in the medical establishment is probably an enabling factor. If they trusted their doctors to make the right decisions for their children, they probably wouldn't be buying into Wakefield's study or quoting Jenny McCarthy. Clearly there is fear and a human desire for easy answers, but I think lack of trust is also a big part of it.
- saurik 12y ago
  > There was never a scientific basis. That's the point: that we have trained people to distrust science because most of the "results" people are exposed to are bad popular articles reporting on sketchy studies from Psychology and Medicine that tend to be "overthrown" every few years: it is difficult to go to people and say "no, seriously: vaccines work" when they can retort "that's what you said about red wine, and just today I read an article about how that was all bunk... in another few years everyone is going to be sorry they listened to you guys about these vaccine things you all love so much". :(
  - eshvk 12y ago
    > That's the point: that we have trained people to distrust science I am not sure science is an article of faith to be trusted or not. Science is a continuous process of reviewing evidence and making hypothesis based on that evidence. It is not a mathematical proof. Sure, there are "bad popular articles" that describe causal relations enthusiastically. However, the pipeline of bullshit flows backwards too. There are enough research papers out there where results may not be fudged but over enthusiastic language may be used that can to the layman's eye look like magic.
    - saurik 12y ago
      Science is one part process and one part people: you first have to trust the process to provide useful evidence, and you second have to trust the people to tell you what they did honestly. Psychology and Medicine are "problem fields" in both areas: the process itself runs into ethical challenges that result in very few real "experiments" (leading to lots of correlations with difficult hidden variables, nothing at all like "causal relations"), and the people involved in the reporting process are also much more likely to blow things out of proportion as these are areas of extremely broad interest. The result is that when Geophysics says something important the general populace doesn't believe them (hence why "trust" is the right word to be using here) because their mental model of Science is built out of "scientists" making lots of firm contradictory statements, and especially many situations they remember where what was said just a few years ago was entirely "overthrown" by the new research of the week. If you actually listen to the people who refuse to believe in things like vaccines or climate change, they seem to just think scientists are silly people who think they know more than they actually do :(.

xmonkee 12y ago

Dayum, that's one of the best articles I've read in a really long time. I think we are still decades away from really understanding experimenter effect, and till then, I take all medical studies with a fucten of salt. Example: I used to be really into reading large meta-analysis dietary supplement efficacy, but lately I've stopped taking all supps. They changed consensus on plenty of them in front my very eyes, and I kinda lost faith in the field.