More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think • Hacker News Board

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#81

Post by MrJagil » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:54 PM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #80

MrJagil wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey Julian, I really wasn't trying to discredit any of the studies done. Whenever I participate in discussion my main motivation is always to try and create nuances. I know before hand that an actual truth is impossible to attain, so I feel it's better to just try and add some color to the discussion. Causation and correlation is of course always low-hanging fruit, I just felt it was curious that the article did not…

As a general rule, devils-advocacy (being the process of advocating a position you don't agree with because you think it isn't getting enough air time) is unhelpful verging on concern trolling. If it's a strong argument, why hasn't it convinced you ? When you do that, you emit weak arguments that are easy to knock down but send the discussion off on a tangent.

I never considered nuancing a discussion could be unhelpful, but I think I understand your point. There's some kind of underlying truth we're attempting to uncover, and in your opinion, I'm derailing by "nuancing" through devils advocacy; submitting arguments I do not actually believe to be worthwhile.

I'm wondering though, does it have to be so black and white? Can't I believe partially that what i'm positing is worthwhile, or at least have a feeling there's something to uncover down that avenue, without being entirely convinced? I would assume bouncing half-baked ideas off each other could be valuable (though I do recall a bunch of studies debunking Brainstorming, which I guess this is similar to).

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#82

Post by 0359B02149AB » Tue, May 12, 2015, 10:16 AM UTC

Raphmedia wrote: post #70

0359B02149AB wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, I would agree with you for some, but for others not so much. I get a short boost followed by a long crash when drinking coffee. It's also like an unfocused focus - like as long as what I want to focus on is nearby, I will do that. But if I have to figure out what I want to focus on, that feels like frustration and hypertension. I prefer tea. I get up at 4:50 am 5 days a week, and I rarely sleep past 7-8…

I am very curious. How would a typical day look like when you wake up at 4:50? Do you need to commute very early, or do you use that time for yourself? I personally wake up, get ready and leave, while I do all my things late evening / during the night.

I leave my house around 5:10, I get to work at 6:50ish. I leave work from 3-5, and depending on traffic, I get home anywhere from 4:30 to 6:30. Then I shower, blow dry my hair (~45-60 min), then I eat (~30-60 min), then I code/study, then social email / doctor who, then sleep.

I don't have a ton of free time, but I make it work.

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#83

Post by kenbellows » Tue, May 12, 2015, 11:58 AM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #68

kenbellows wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be considered an ad hominem attack on a study if OP had said "the source was funded by coffee sellers and therefore it's all false and incorrect ". But that's not what's happening here anyway.

If the strength of an argument depends partly on trusting the integrity of a source, why is doubting that integrity a fallacy? In an ideal world you judge experimental results by their reproducibility, but who on HN has the time to reproduce results?

If all you are doing is casting reasonable doubt, that's fine. The logical fallacy arises when you point to the source of a proposition and declare that mouth that spoke it makes it false by nature. There's a big difference between "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, so I'm skeptical and would like further studies and independent verification" and "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, therefore the conclusion is false and coffee actually isn't good for you." Even if Big Coffee funded this report and benefited from its conclusions, the conclusions may very well still be valid; it would be a fallacy to reject this possibility outright.

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#84

Post by kenbellows » Tue, May 12, 2015, 12:00 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #64

kenbellows wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful, OP isn't claiming that a lack of funding data makes the article false or inaccurate. The point is simply that (in OP's opinion) some of the most critical information needed to determine whether or not this article's conclusions should be taken seriously is missing. This is not an instance of an ad hominem fallacy.

I agree it wasn't a perfect fit - I'm not fluent enough in debate terminology to know, maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

I don't think there was a fallacy involved at all here. If in fact critical data is missing, then OP is right to point that out. This doesn't inherently negate the conclusions of the article (and claiming that it does would in fact be a fallacy), but I don't think OP was claiming that anyway.