41–50 of 82 posts
40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…
40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to NHS: A processed food is any food or drink that has been changed in some way when it’s made or prepared. Most foods we eat are processed in some way. Processing can be used to: make foods safe, for example milk is pasteurised to remove harmful bacteria make foods suitable for use, such as pressing seeds to make oil preserve foods or help them last longer, such as tinned or frozen foods change how food ta…
This is a disingenuous question because you obviously know cooked meat is not what we usually mean by processed food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a disingenuous question because you obviously know cooked meat is not what we usually mean by processed food.
And that's why the term is confusing, because there's a magical meaning behind that, which who knows what it exactly means. And you use this term to raise children - I absolutely was confused as a child about the meaning behind it. It felt like this magical term that I was unable to comprehend. Almost like circular reasoning - if something is processed it's bad for you. What does processed mean? That it's made bad fo…
We can keep on going with all possible ingredients and all possible combinations and most sane people will agree on what is called "processed" or not.
This is disingenuous discussion dressed up in smarty pants talk.
Shall we continue or actually discuss something substantive? Like the fact that Americans are morbidly obese and eat 60 pounds of sugar a year. We look like crap.
I don’t think the issue is how much of “science” is fake. It’s how you define “science”. There have always been lower quality work and journals that are inherently given lower weight in the scientific community. Many of these lower quality papers just aren’t considered by working scientists. It’s a bit like email… once you start seeing a significant amount of spam, you just get used to ignoring it. This is a feature…
14% is a lower bound. I suspect if you include studies that can't be replicated it's well over 50%. And yes with that much garbage the public should dismiss all new published scientific findings. Modern scientific publishing has been gamed it's nearly useless for learning anything directly because you can't trust it. Some fields more than others of course, but it's all bad. Yes this includes tier 1 journals.
Then, someone worked out a theory and replicable experiment (humans and guinea pigs are the only mammals that die horribly when not fed vitamin C) and with a replicable experiment in hand, you could use little s science and now no one gets scurvy, trust not required.
40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…
I claim "processed food" isn't even a cogent concept.
In fact I claim "cogent" isn't even a cogent concept
How about "claim"?
See how these definitional arguments become un-useful and boring?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, that as soon as a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, it can be used to justify public policy positions. Then a large number of people will points to the study, or even worse, to press characterizations of what a person thinks the study says, to support their preference on the public policy position. Immediately, anyone who has an alternate position on the public policy will be accused of b…
This is a problem with the journalism and politics, it's not really about science. No scientist would trust a result that depends on a single small sample paper. Those are just stepping stones that may justify further research for more robust evidence. This fact is quite clear to scientist and it's why most would discourage the general public (including smart engineers) from reading academic articles. But in general,…
But there are loads of papers like this. Then you have some literature studies which look at all these papers together and get result aggregates.
Then you get some “proper” studies which link to these aggregates, and several small studies, and you’re going to read these “proper” studies which are quoted often and deemed decent or good quality.
And at no point will you realise it’s all based on shoddy foundations.
This is for example what recently happened in social psychology
40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…
Be careful with this default position. If we start from first principles: - Any one individual is not trained or experienced in the vast majority of scientific disciplines, regardless of his/her expertise in any one field - Even if half the studies published have flaws (where did you get that stat? was that study flawed?), their body of references is filtered by decades of replication and paper ranking of importance…
Most fields are really bad at stats which is one thing that is pervasive across just about all science. More than half of science wouldn’t exist without some sort of fraud, clear selection bias, or p-hacking.
It’s to the point that one sure way to lose friends and be shunned in academia is to be good at statistics.
It’s like the plagiarism scandal, academics have been getting away with it for so long it’s become normalized. It used to be that plagiarism would be the absolute end of any academic career. Now some academics are arguing for an amnesty on the basis that everyone did it and others are ignoring it.
Edit: I should point out like the other commenter that a lot of the fraudulent data is laughably blatant. Like pulled ‘random’ numbers straight from their head, not even using any type of random number generator. Or pulling random numbers from wrong distribution. Or not using realistic noise etc.
40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…
I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation. It could be... - unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence) - unjustified and malicious (this i would consider 'fake') - unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake') - ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's why the term is confusing, because there's a magical meaning behind that, which who knows what it exactly means. And you use this term to raise children - I absolutely was confused as a child about the meaning behind it. It felt like this magical term that I was unable to comprehend. Almost like circular reasoning - if something is processed it's bad for you. What does processed mean? That it's made bad fo…
Cooked carrot = not processed Oreo = processed Soda = processed Steak = not processed Sugar = processed We can keep on going with all possible ingredients and all possible combinations and most sane people will agree on what is called "processed" or not. This is disingenuous discussion dressed up in smarty pants talk. Shall we continue or actually discuss something substantive? Like the fact that Americans are morbid…
oreo = ultra processed
a raw carrot and a cooked carrot have different nutritional profiles.