Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#31

Post by wallace_f »

coldtea wrote: post #24
Angostura wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can find hundred of studies to support your arguments, no matter what they are. I think that simply incorrect, assuming 'studies' != Youtube videos. I know because I've been involved in internet arguments where I've gone looking for studies and found my own argument is incorrect/poorly supported.

Often the studies showing your argument is "incorrect/poorly supported" are poorly supported themselves, and just go uncontested for decades, piling citations. And that's on harder sciences. In soft sciences (and liberal arts, etc) it's the wild west -- what gets more grants and is more popular at the moment gets priority and is "proved".

Yea... People have been even hoaxing journals for decades and it goes ignored. This scheme got some attention, probably just for how hilarious it is that they published a chapter of mein kampf in one of the leading feminist journals of gender studies: https://youtu.be/fvZNXRiAsn4

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#32

Post by danaris »

coldtea wrote: post #25
ekianjo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what you refer to is not Science,its pseudoscience. Pretty much any crap gets published these days, review standards are abysmal and there is hardly any replication. Only thru replication can you actually claim there is Science.

> what you refer to is not Science,its pseudoscience. Pretty much any crap gets published these days, review standards are abysmal and there is hardly any replication. That's like the argument that USSR was not real communism, etc. At some point, science is as science does. There's no some holier, better checked, domain of practice. It is what it is, and it sometimes has replication, more often than not it doesn't.

No, science is always science. Just because the media portrays certain things as "scientific truth" (or, for that matter, scientifically unsure) doesn't make it so.

Indeed, even if scientists claim something bogus, that doesn't make it science.

So...actually, yeah, it's a lot like the argument that the USSR wasn't real communism, any more than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. People claim it to be X, other people take that claim as gospel and use it to paint X as terrible, despite the fact that the people making the claim are full of shit.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#33

Post by wallace_f »

rjf72 wrote: post #30
coldtea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what you refer to is not Science,its pseudoscience. Pretty much any crap gets published these days, review standards are abysmal and there is hardly any replication. That's like the argument that USSR was not real communism, etc. At some point, science is as science does. There's no some holier, better checked, domain of practice. It is what it is, and it sometimes has replication, more often than not it doesn't.

One factor you cannot ignore is the exponential increase in the number of 'scientists.' In times past, for better and for worse, college was generally relegated to an extremely small section of generally over-performing society. And of these a tiny minority would then go on to pursue the post-grad level education that would culminate in becoming a scientist. In today's society college has become high school 2.0. And…

I mostly agree, but the GP is also certainly correct though. There is in fact a "holier than thou" science and it is that which follows the scientific method. It is reproduced, empirical, fundamental science. Most garbage published in journals today does not meet that criteria, and even economists, psychologists and even sociologists call themselves scientists when they cannot possibly follow the scientific method in nearly every part of what they study.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#34

Post by thanatropism »

I think pop sci rags going wild over papers that claim radical breaks are a part of the problem, even if a small one.

There's simply no reason that people who are not technical enough to read scientific papers would be up to date on the latest cancer research. People have a right to knowledge? Then open up the journals.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#35

Post by thanatropism »

wallace_f wrote: post #11
AstralStorm wrote: post #6

Statistics. Garbage in, garbage out. This shows why you have to explicitly quantify statistical power and error model for your study design. Tools are good, but not good enough to do it for you. Then, do calculate effect size instead of a binary answer. You will get answer with a digit in fifth place with a proper size unbiased sample. Note that for proper genome study, the sample size for observational studies is in…

It's amazing how convincing statistics are--even for supposed experts--and not just for the reason you elaborate on. In 2019, they really are the best way to lie.

We did go WAY overboard with the data-driven rhetoric. Data was supposed to replace theory going forward.

What a generational clusterfuck.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#36

Post by bgie »

lm28469 wrote: post #15
wallace_f wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how convincing statistics are--even for supposed experts--and not just for the reason you elaborate on. In 2019, they really are the best way to lie.

Science became a new religion. Instead of saying "shut up god made it that way" you say "shut up science says it's that way". You can find hundred of studies to support your arguments, no matter what they are, it's even easier if you don't actually read the studies and stop at the summaries made by popular medias.

Please do find me hundred of studies to support objects on earth falling upwards... newton's gravity is pretty well established within the context it applies to... so in no way can science be compared to religion.

There is well established science and science-in-development, which can turn out to be wrong when new evidence is discovered. But for religion there is NO such gradient - everything is based on faith, evidence does not even come into play...

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#37

Post by bgie »

coldtea wrote: post #25
ekianjo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what you refer to is not Science,its pseudoscience. Pretty much any crap gets published these days, review standards are abysmal and there is hardly any replication. Only thru replication can you actually claim there is Science.

> what you refer to is not Science,its pseudoscience. Pretty much any crap gets published these days, review standards are abysmal and there is hardly any replication. That's like the argument that USSR was not real communism, etc. At some point, science is as science does. There's no some holier, better checked, domain of practice. It is what it is, and it sometimes has replication, more often than not it doesn't.

You are applying the 'no true scotsman' fallacy wrong.

Depending on the definition of X, you CAN say that something is not X

Only if you define 'science' as 'the thing that people labeled scientists do', can you arrive at your conclusion.

I would define scientists as 'people practicing the scientific method'.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#38

Post by DanBC »

Lazare wrote: post #26
unityByFreedom wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blog actively misleads readers into thinking Scott Alexander is his real name, > SSC is the project of Scott Alexander, a psychiatrist on the US West Coast. You can email him at scott[at]slatestarcodex[dot]com. Note that emailing bloggers who say they are psychiatrists is a bad way to deal with your psychiatric emergencies, and you might wish to consider talking to your doctor or going to a hospital instead. [1]…

> it is completely relevant here as he's being cited as a real psychiatrist. That's not verifiable without knowing a real name. We're discussing his criticism of how a ton of "real psychiatrists" got some major things wrong. This criticism stands or falls on its merits, not on his status as a "real psychiatrist". You don't need to be a "real psychiatrist" in order to this sort of analysis (and, it turns out, a ton of…

Psychiatrist is normally a protected title that requires a professional qualification and a registration, so it's not unreasonable that people are told that this is an alias.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#39

Post by gnoppa »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #27
gnoppa wrote: post #18

Now please let the same epiphany come about cancer research or personalized medicine based on genes.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. No doubt there's a lot of sketchy stuff going on, but also the fields are very wide with lots of "verticals" going on. Just cause one vertical might be built on a shakey foundation, doesn't mean all of them are (and the converse is also true).

You might be right that not everything in those fields is bad, but most is. Nevertheless, what is so terrible is that all the money is put into research (gene mutation causing cancer) even though it has been proven wrong many years ago. That becomes very clear after reading Thomas Seyfried's work (cell fermentation causing cancer).

Sadly, academics have the incentives to publish papers in prestigious journals that make them sound smart and not to find a simple cure. Likewise, the free market does not have the incentive to easily and cheaply cure people but to maximze profits. Hence, so much research is absolutely abysmal, wrong, misleading and harmful. Sadly the human mind is constructed in such a way that we self-deceive to gain advantages. That is why there is no need for a conspiracy but just the wrong kind of incentive structure.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#40

Post by DataWorker »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #28
Lazare wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is completely relevant here as he's being cited as a real psychiatrist. That's not verifiable without knowing a real name. We're discussing his criticism of how a ton of "real psychiatrists" got some major things wrong. This criticism stands or falls on its merits, not on his status as a "real psychiatrist". You don't need to be a "real psychiatrist" in order to this sort of analysis (and, it turns out, a ton of…

> We're discussing his criticism of how a ton of "real psychiatrists" got some major things wrong No, you replied to me. My comment was it is strange that this Atlantic article cites him as "the psychiatrist Scott Alexander" because that is a pen name, and it isn't verifiable that he is a psychiatrist due to his anonymity. Your refutation of my point is "it doesn't matter that it isn't verifiable", but that was part…

Perhaps publish or parish applies to journalism as well. Factchecking costs money and not everyone has ssc’s budget.
Post reply on HN