4 ms·

Given that most published medical research findings are false, their scepticism is well founded. Your confidence, to the contrary, may be borne of ignorance.

Given that most published medical research findings are false, their scepticism is well founded. Your confidence, to the contrary, may be borne of ignorance. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj...

anigbrowl 12y ago
It's not skepticism, it's rejectionism. Skepticism would have been to look up the paper and then argue that it's deficient in some manner - sample size too small, errors in the methodology, whatever it may be. I'm well aware that many, many published studies are scientifically deficient or overstated in some way, and have no problem with such deficiencies being pointed out. Asking 'did the researchers consider X' without bothering to even look at the paper is just posturing. It's on the same level as saying 'this looks shopped - I can tell by some of the pixels and from having seen quite a few shop jobs in my time.' It may be an attempt to signal hard-headedness and intellectual rigor, but absent any specific target for the criticism, it's worthless.
- Scientist007 12y ago
  If most published research findings are false, isn't it rational to reject all findings?
mikeyouse 12y ago
> Given that most published medical research findings are false, their scepticism is well founded. Ugh. Another blanket statement that in no way reflects the actual paper in question. From your own source he recommends larger studies, cross-team work clear pre-trial hypotheses, and study-registration. Guess what? This n=5,300 study was performed by researchers at UCSF, Stanford, Berkeley, and Michigan, they published their intention to run the study prior to running it with a hypothesis that was partially proved wrong (they expected shortened telomeres with noncarbonated SSBs as well as with sugary soda). What exactly is your issue with this study? Or do you just reject science in general.
- Scientist007 12y ago
  Guess what? Given that all observational studies are essentially exercises in variable adjustment and little else, it seems reasonable to exercise extreme scepticism. Some people you just can't reach, I guess. Believe what you will.
- NeverEnough 12y ago
  are you arguing that given a study that turned out to be false, a layman should be able to spot the error in methodology? I don't think that's the case at all. It isn't a black and white issue, and I certainly don't feel it has been conclusively shown that if I start drinking drinks that are BOTH fizzy and sugary tomorrow, it will result in my telomeres shortening at an unusually high rate as the article claims. Is that really anti science? I don't think so.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    It has been shown that there is good evidence that this is the case, which they are going to follow up with further study. And lay folk do find errors in papers all the time, it varies a lot on the paper and the field how difficult that is though. Some papers, the vast majority of scientists would not be able to spot errors, it really depends on how specialist the required knowledge is and there really are no hard and fast rules there. So given a study that turned out to be false, in general it isn't possible to argue either way as to whether a layman would spot errors, you would have to argue it on a case by case basis. The one thing we do know is you definitely cannot spot errors without at least reading the thing and going through the working.

anigbrowl 12y ago

It's not skepticism, it's rejectionism. Skepticism would have been to look up the paper and then argue that it's deficient in some manner - sample size too small, errors in the methodology, whatever it may be. I'm well aware that many, many published studies are scientifically deficient or overstated in some way, and have no problem with such deficiencies being pointed out. Asking 'did the researchers consider X' without bothering to even look at the paper is just posturing. It's on the same level as saying 'this looks shopped - I can tell by some of the pixels and from having seen quite a few shop jobs in my time.' It may be an attempt to signal hard-headedness and intellectual rigor, but absent any specific target for the criticism, it's worthless.

Scientist007 12y ago
If most published research findings are false, isn't it rational to reject all findings?

mikeyouse 12y ago

> Given that most published medical research findings are false, their scepticism is well founded. Ugh. Another blanket statement that in no way reflects the actual paper in question. From your own source he recommends larger studies, cross-team work clear pre-trial hypotheses, and study-registration. Guess what? This n=5,300 study was performed by researchers at UCSF, Stanford, Berkeley, and Michigan, they published their intention to run the study prior to running it with a hypothesis that was partially proved wrong (they expected shortened telomeres with noncarbonated SSBs as well as with sugary soda). What exactly is your issue with this study? Or do you just reject science in general.

Scientist007 12y ago
Guess what? Given that all observational studies are essentially exercises in variable adjustment and little else, it seems reasonable to exercise extreme scepticism. Some people you just can't reach, I guess. Believe what you will.
NeverEnough 12y ago
are you arguing that given a study that turned out to be false, a layman should be able to spot the error in methodology? I don't think that's the case at all. It isn't a black and white issue, and I certainly don't feel it has been conclusively shown that if I start drinking drinks that are BOTH fizzy and sugary tomorrow, it will result in my telomeres shortening at an unusually high rate as the article claims. Is that really anti science? I don't think so.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  It has been shown that there is good evidence that this is the case, which they are going to follow up with further study. And lay folk do find errors in papers all the time, it varies a lot on the paper and the field how difficult that is though. Some papers, the vast majority of scientists would not be able to spot errors, it really depends on how specialist the required knowledge is and there really are no hard and fast rules there. So given a study that turned out to be false, in general it isn't possible to argue either way as to whether a layman would spot errors, you would have to argue it on a case by case basis. The one thing we do know is you definitely cannot spot errors without at least reading the thing and going through the working.