Using science to argue your case

1235»

Replies

  • professorRAT
    professorRAT Posts: 690 Member
    You can find a study to support just about any claim.

    Which is why scientists don't evaluate scientific evidence by looking at one or two studies. Unfortunately, this is exactly what non-scientists do.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    You can find a study to support just about any claim.

    Which is why scientists don't evaluate scientific evidence by looking at one or two studies. Unfortunately, this is exactly what non-scientists do.

    Exactly... a literature review covers 100's of studies on the subject. But that is a completely different study all together.
  • professorRAT
    professorRAT Posts: 690 Member
    Peer-review is more like being asked to give a coherent talk while other scientists try to stab you in the kidneys.

    LOL. This is so true. Academics love nothing more than to tear apart another academic's work. This is actually a good thing and why the peer-review process is useful.
  • professorRAT
    professorRAT Posts: 690 Member
    Listen to your own body, it's your best advicer and decide for yourself what's best for you!

    Erm, demonstrably false, for many people on here. How do you think so many people got to be obese, and needed to get onto a health web site to track what they eat?

    QFT. "Listen to your own body" is horrible advice. Hormones can trigger hunger feelings (or lack of hunger feelings) independently of true energy/dietary needs.
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Also, if people could just stop saying "Because science" as as answer that would be great :)

    Nope.

    Because science.

    53734-Science--Imgur-Q0WD.gif

    QFT - MTE
  • ajaxe432
    ajaxe432 Posts: 608 Member
    Listen to your own body, it's your best advicer and decide for yourself what's best for you!

    Erm, demonstrably false, for many people on here. How do you think so many people got to be obese, and needed to get onto a health web site to track what they eat?

    QFT. "Listen to your own body" is horrible advice. Hormones can trigger hunger feelings (or lack of hunger feelings) independently of true energy/dietary needs.
    Exactly! More than 1/3 of the nation listened to their body at one point or another......or all the time.....
    http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    You can find a study to support just about any claim.

    Which is why scientists don't evaluate scientific evidence by looking at one or two studies. Unfortunately, this is exactly what non-scientists do.
    I think part of that is people are looking for research that supports their own personal experience and in nutrition science everyone has personal experience to draw upon. If a study confirms something you know to be true you can't argue with that. It doesn't matter if what you "know" is completely wrong -- it's your experience and now you have something "official" that supports that? Forget about it, at that point it's pretty much a belief and firmly entrenched. That's not confined to the non-scientists.
  • professorRAT
    professorRAT Posts: 690 Member
    You can find a study to support just about any claim.

    Which is why scientists don't evaluate scientific evidence by looking at one or two studies. Unfortunately, this is exactly what non-scientists do.
    I think part of that is people are looking for research that supports their own personal experience and in nutrition science everyone has personal experience to draw upon. If a study confirms something you know to be true you can't argue with that. It doesn't matter if what you "know" is completely wrong -- it's your experience and now you have something "official" that supports that? Forget about it, at that point it's pretty much a belief and firmly entrenched. That's not confined to the non-scientists.

    No, it isn't. However, scientists are trained to evaluate evidence much more broadly. Thus, they are a bit more likely to succeed in attempting to be truly more evidence-based in making judgments. Perhaps just a bit, I agree. They are still human and humans do not like it when their prior beliefs are challenged. Still, I find myself MUCH more careful when I form judgments after years of such training and experience compared to my younger self. Many of my colleagues are similarly careful, but certainly not all.
  • ren_ascent
    ren_ascent Posts: 432 Member
    Snark aside, I am a neuroscientist and I am genuinely curious why the general public does not trust science/peer review, and what you trust instead. It makes me sad to see that people basically think that my life's work is worthless.

    Also, serious offer, if anyone on here wants help with reading and interpreting any particular research article, please PM me, I'm happy to help. Sometimes if you only read the abstract, that's not helpful. The most important sections are the methods and results.

    1) Because most people cannot translate a quality peer reviewed article
    2) They can totally find this health stuff on the same site as the newest Kardashian scandal!

    On a serious note, the general public does not get fed a regular diet of scientific fact, so it becomes fiction. Flipping throughTV channels, listening to the radio, standing in line at the market you get a stream of nonesense that means squat but is taken as life as we know it.
  • Sjenny5891
    Sjenny5891 Posts: 717 Member
    General rule of thumb.... most of "What Science says" does not work for me. I must be a Mutant or an Alien.
    One must learn to take them with the same degree as the "Parenting Experts" who I am convinced have no children of their own.
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    "Myths of Weight Loss are Plentiful, Researcher Says"
    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/myths-of-weight-loss-are-plentiful-researcher-says/

    Link to the New England Journal of Medicine, which is the basis of the statements about myths.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=articleDiscussion

    “Here is an overview of the obesity myths looked at by the researchers and what is known to be true:

    MYTHS

    Small things make a big difference. Walking a mile a day can lead to a loss of more than 50 pounds in five years.

    Set a realistic goal to lose a modest amount.

    People who are too ambitious will get frustrated and give up.

    You have to be mentally ready to diet or you will never succeed.

    Slow and steady is the way to lose. If you lose weight too fast you will lose less in the long run.”
  • VBnotbitter
    VBnotbitter Posts: 820 Member
    I wrote the original post from the point of view of a professional end user of scientific research rather than as a researcher, and its taught me useful techniques to apply to my own life - don't trust information from Shape, Huffington post, youtube etc, go to the source.

    I work in resuscitation medicine. Now I can google methods of resuscitation and discover that rectal administration of tobacco smoke has been used. Before I start directing doctors towards their patients' arses with a cigarette and a funnel, I need to have a closer look at the evidence. Where was it sourced, who did the studies, what kind of study was it, how many other studies have there been etc. I apply the same scrutiny to my diet and most people with any degree of literacy can do the same without needing to be a science major first.

    Incidentally a couple of people commented on the irony of citing Wikipedia. I was fully aware of that but sometimes wiki has a really good way of simplifying concepts and language for lay people and I stated that in the original post.
  • ElliInJapan
    ElliInJapan Posts: 286 Member
    I wrote the original post from the point of view of a professional end user of scientific research rather than as a researcher, and its taught me useful techniques to apply to my own life - don't trust information from Shape, Huffington post, youtube etc, go to the source.

    I work in resuscitation medicine. Now I can google methods of resuscitation and discover that rectal administration of tobacco smoke has been used. Before I start directing doctors towards their patients' arses with a cigarette and a funnel, I need to have a closer look at the evidence. Where was it sourced, who did the studies, what kind of study was it, how many other studies have there been etc. I apply the same scrutiny to my diet and most people with any degree of literacy can do the same without needing to be a science major first.

    I agree that it's much better to look up scientific papers directly than getting your information from newspaper articles, blogs, youtube etc, especially when searching for detailed information for professional use. And looking up papers has its own merits for your own understanding and expanding your knowledge. But, in my opinion, for the general public and for the discussions going on in e.g. forums, that's an overkill and often leads to unproductive discussions where people compete who has better skills in digging up google scholar and coming up with the right studies to prove their point.

    Master the basics first. Learn what is well founded knowledge and can safely go into textbooks & course material. That, to me, is way more valuable than any google scholar search. Frontline research is an ongoing discussion and picking up a few papers here and there is like eavesdropping a few words and trying to draw conclusions out of it.
    Incidentally a couple of people commented on the irony of citing Wikipedia. I was fully aware of that but sometimes wiki has a really good way of simplifying concepts and language for lay people and I stated that in the original post.

    I agree. Despite its weaknesses, wikipedia is an excellent starting point / introduction for many topics.

Categories