Scientific thought. Definitely not social sciences pt 2.

[David.]

@David. This article should be right up your alley. I'd excerpt it but an having trouble copying the text.

Medical Studies are almost always bogus

How many times have you encountered a study — on, say, weight loss — that trumpeted one fad, only to see another study discrediting it a week later?

That’s because many medical studies are junk. It’s an open secret in the research community, and it even has a name: “the reproducibility crisis.”

For any study to have legitimacy, it must be replicated, yet only half of medical studies celebrated in newspapers hold water under serious follow-up scrutiny — and about two-thirds of the “sexiest” cutting-edge reports, including the discovery of new genes linked to obesity or mental illness, are later “disconfirmed.”

Though erring is a key part of the scientific process, this level of failure slows scientific progress, wastes time and resources and costs taxpayers excesses of $28 billion further. writes NPR science correspondent Richard Harris in his book “Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions” (Basic Books).

“When you read something, take it with a grain of salt,” Harris tells The Post. “Even the best science can be misleading, and often what you’re reading is not the best science....”

....So why are so many tests bogus? Harris has some thoughts.

For one, science is hard. Everything from unconscious bias — the way researchers see their data through the rosy lens of their own theses — to the types of beaker they use or the bedding that they keep mice in can cloud results and derail reproducibility.

Then there is the funding issue. During the heyday of the late ’90s and early aughts, research funding increased until Congress decided to hold funding flat for the next decade, creating an atmosphere of intense, some would say unhealthy, competition among research scientists. Now only 17 percent of grants get funded (compared to a third three decades ago). Add this to the truly terrible job market for post-docs — only 21 percent land tenure track jobs — and there is a greater incentive to publish splashy counterintuitive studies, which have a higher likelihood of being wrong, writes Harris.

One effect of this “pressure to publish” situation is intentional data manipulation, where scientists cherry-pick the information that supports a hypothesis while ignoring the data that doesn’t — an all too common problem in academic research, writes Harris.

“There’s a constant scramble for research dollars. Promotions and tenure depend on making splashy discoveries. There are big rewards for being first, even if the work ultimately fails the test of time,” writes Harris.

http://nypost.com/2017/05/06/medical-studies-are-almost-always-bogus/

And to go along with the point I made earlier, it is virtually impossible for those of us on the outside to properly vet such studies. And if you consider that some studies have a deliberate bias in favor of a certain result, and reproduction may only be attempted by those with similar biases, the reliability of any study that may be associated with an agenda is doubtful.

I've got ten or so tabs bookmarked that address this further.

Sure makes understanding the world difficult, doesnt it.

 

[David.]

Ill just post what lands for me the hardest on this one:

you can't "prove" something with a study, you can only provide data that support, or reject a hypothesis. Too many people read a single study about a topic, and interpret the conclusion as a fact. People are just not aware of all the sneaky statistics and flawed experimental designs that are used to push an agenda.

 

[Whittaker]

Partisan political agendas have infiltrated our news, our sports, our movies, our parades, our music...pretty much every aspect of our culture. It would be quite naive to think it hasn't infiltrated scientific research.
Additionally, much of our science is funded by govt and funneled through universities, both of which are very sensitive to political winds.

 

[David.]

So whats the answer? Perform our own studies? Learn all the components of each mechanism to the level we're experts? Learn methodology tricks so we can recognize them? Familiarize ourselves with each researchers biases?

 

[Whittaker]

So whats the answer?

I don't have a good one.
Part of it should be scientists policing themselves I would think. As a group they are more credible than any body that we might assign to oversee them(Congress, Universities, Govt, the UN).

Its just a fact of our time that its prudent to be skeptical of most information sources.
"Follow the money" is still good advice.

 

[David.]

This is absolutely amazing.

http://awesomestuff365.com/portable-language-translation-device/

 

[gourimoko]

So whats the answer? Perform our own studies? Learn all the components of each mechanism to the level we're experts? Learn methodology tricks so we can recognize them? Familiarize ourselves with each researchers biases?

This is.. kind of what I talked about before in other threads.

Just hear me out on this Dave... This thought process that seems to be getting pushed here is really anti-intellectualism in a nutshell. I mean think about it, just for a moment, objectively... The rejection of scientific study and the findings derived from scientific study; the rejection of the hard work that goes into the process of making scientific discoveries; all in favor of a layman's / common-sense approach to understanding as though that is somehow superior to a scientific one.

The answer to your question is why would you need to do any of this unless you think science itself is fraudulent?

 

[Whittaker]

This thought process that seems to be getting pushed here is really anti-intellectualism in a nutshell.

I don't think it is.
Nobody is questioning geology or material science or chemistry or mathematics or a host of others.
It is only the fields that have proven themselves suspect or that are being politically influenced that are being questioned.

 

[David.]

This is.. kind of what I talked about before in other threads.

Just hear me out on this Dave... This thought process that seems to be getting pushed here is really anti-intellectualism in a nutshell. I mean think about it, just for a moment, objectively... The rejection of scientific study and the findings derived from scientific study; the rejection of the hard work that goes into the process of making scientific discoveries; all in favor of a layman's / common-sense approach to understanding as though that is somehow superior to a scientific one.

The answer to your question is why would you need to do any of this unless you think science itself is fraudulent?

I think part of the scientific process involves retesting things to make sure they are true. Its concerning that people are discouraging the quest for truth.

There are conflicting reports, there are falsified studies. Its epidemic in some disciplines. There are studies YOU disagree with, performed by academics. Im not labelling you an anti-intellectual because of it and i would encourage you to be skeptical about studies before i would encourage you to accept things (especially things that are obviously debatable) as fact.

I think its obvious there are issues with academia and research, including but not limited to the mass politicization of academia and bias. Its concerning that you are discouraging people not to question things that are subject to compromise.

Im not talking about "the dinosaurs werent real and the frogs are going gay". But when you set the precedent that things should just br accepted rather than criticized, im going to disagree with you.

I think that you think im angling towards flat earth, and im not.

 

[gourimoko]

I think part of the scientific process involves retesting things to make sure they are true. Its concerning that people are discouraging the quest for truth.

There are conflicting reports, there are falsified studies. Its epidemic in some disciplines. There are studies YOU disagree with, performed by academics. Im not labelling you an anti-intellectual because of it and i would encourage you to be skeptical about studies before i would encourage you to accept things (especially things that are obviously debatable) as fact.

Im not talking about "the dinosaurs werent real and the frogs are going gay". But when you set the precedent that things should just br accepted rather than criticized, im going to disagree with you.

I think that you think im angling towards flat earth, and im not.

I'm not arguing that academics are infallible; and that studies represent truth in itself. I'm not arguing that studies avoid reproducibility or falsifiability. That'd be the very last thing you'd ever hear me say.

What I am saying is that it seems as though we want to accept some of science and reject parts that we don't like, and I'm not sure why if not out of personal bias?

I don't think you are arguing for flat Earth, but I guess my question would be, are you making a case that we can accept our own version of "truth" as it suits us?

 

[gourimoko]

I don't think it is.
Nobody is questioning geology or material science or chemistry or mathematics or a host of others.
It is only the fields that have proven themselves suspect or that are being politically influenced that are being questioned.

The bolded is problematic.

1) Because who decides when and where to apply this appeal to motive?
2) Why not criticize the work first, and THEN make observations about those who did it?

For example, in the Regnerus studies; I as well as many others, looked at the study first and it's obvious the methodology is simply not sound and based on some strikingly awful assumptions that would completely invalidate any resulting findings. From there, among other places, you can then ask yourself: why would this man do this?

Any objective observer would have known that you can't compare these two disparate entities (i.e., married couples living together and unmarried ex-couples where on person says they might be gay); so why did he do it? That's where questions of bias come in.

Questions of bias come in when the journal the authors publish their work in is fake, or when it's in no way peer-reviewed; or it's an internal publication for an oil company or a Defense Department contractor, etc.

Oh, and 3) People are questioning mathematics, geology, chemistry, biology and astronomy all the time... I've heard, numerous times, how these fields are also "politically motivated and biased."

 

[Whittaker]

Oh, and 3) People are questioning mathematics, geology, chemistry, biology and astronomy all the time... I've heard, numerous times, how these fields are also "politically motivated and biased."

We must run in different circles.
I don't think I've heard of the integrity of those fields being suspect because of political bias.

 

[David.]

The bolded is problematic.

1) Because who decides when and where to apply this appeal to motive?
2) Why not criticize the work first, and THEN make observations about those who did it?

For example, in the Regnerus studies; I as well as many others, looked at the study first and it's obvious the methodology is simply not sound and based on some strikingly awful assumptions that would completely invalidate any resulting findings. From there, among other places, you can then ask yourself: why would this man do this?

Any objective observer would have known that you can't compare these two disparate entities (i.e., married couples living together and unmarried ex-couples where on person says they might be gay); so why did he do it? That's where questions of bias come in.

Questions of bias come in when the journal the authors publish their work in is fake, or when it's in no way peer-reviewed; or it's an internal publication for an oil company or a Defense Department contractor, etc.

Oh, and 3) People are questioning mathematics, geology, chemistry, biology and astronomy all the time... I've heard, numerous times, how these fields are also "politically motivated and biased."

Im not picking which studies to question based on the conclusion of the research, im trying to establish a foundation that i can use when looking for truth, REGARDLESS of the study or the researchers. I dony care whose side who is on, i care for truth.

Ill extend a few points to hopefully give a better idea of where I'm coming from.

1. I think politics are cancer, at least to the point that we're defining our belief system based on dogma. From what I can tell, Im mostly a classic liberal, I believe in the individual freedom and rights over the collective, but in current american politics, that somehow puts me to the right. I'm not a conservative, i dont care to team up with climate science based on the team im voting for. I want the truth. Liberalism is part playing around with ideas and questioning the status quo, which wouldnt come to the conclusion that you accept anything as is and you dont let anyone make your mind up for you. The other side of liberalism has to do with morality, and specific social issues, to the point where its unconstrained in some instances and overrides science. So I'm not toeing the party line based on issues to cover up truth. Im looking at truth and moving outward from that point. But what im trying to illustrate here, is that Im apparently a liberal currently siding with the right. and you can disagree with the conclusions that I've come to as reasons for siding with the right, I'm not debating you on it - my point is I care about truth, even if it means switching sides to get it. I can be mentally 'open borders', but look at the world around me and see being open borders isnt the right answer.


2. I shit you not, immediately after your first post, I just started a podcast on 'what should we eat'. Ill fetch the interviewees name in a second, but he's an academic who has specifically made it his job to cut through this exact problem that we're talking about in regards to nutrition. There are experts who think bacon and eggs for breakfast is death, and there are doctors who think its optimal. You know this, I know this. This motherfucker comes on and Im waiting to hear his explanation, but his very first point of contention is to discredit calories in calories out.

ok.

right? right, so fuck everything you or I ever knew.

3. From here on out, I want to establish that a lot of the time, and in this case especially, I'm approaching things from a philosophical frame. So before I venture out into any specific branch, im making sure my roots are tended to, and in this case, it's establishing 'truth' and how exactly to find it.

And if that means at some point asking if in fact the frogs are going gay, then im asking if the frogs are gay. Because its more important to find truth than it is to not look stupid or to receive criticism, REGARDLESS of how harsh and popular that criticism is. One dude believed the earth was round, and that became two.

 

[gourimoko]

We must run in different circles.
I don't think I've heard of the integrity of those fields being suspect because of political bias.

Those are the fields I have my degrees in.. I have close friends that are also in those fields.

Questioning statisticians who talk about climate change models, biologists and geneticists because they say race is not real, geologists who say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, chemists who tells us what pollutants are killing us off slowly as a species... I've heard arguments about these folks being "politically motivated" for decades.

 

[Wrathe]

Ya, I dunno about you all, but I trust scientific studies blindly. That's why I'm working on RAISING my LDL. Turns out that low LDL is actually bad!

Here's the study!

Are eggs bad today for us, or good, same for salt, I can't remember.

I dunno, if calling bullshit on things that don't pass the smell test make me an anti-intellectual, well, so be it.

No, I don't give studies or scientific research a pass on corruption. Last I checked, research costs money, and where there's money, there's corruption.