Separating Fact From Fiction
Replies
-
Rarely are there absolutes for anything...the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle..as with most things in life, there's usually a lot of grey area that gets ignored.
When doing your own research I wouldn't rely on articles and what not...look up the actual studies. Very often, articles and blogs, etc are written with a biased and certain facts of cherry picked from certain studies to further a greater agenda while other elements are ignored.
I would also add that a fair bit of our own common sense is required...if something seems to good to be true then it probably is...if something is purported to have some kind of magical properties then it's probably bull ****...etc, etc, etc....0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I work for a science lab, so I am always researching scientific articles for my boss. His standards are that they must come from a peer-reviewed source, always cite sources, and list more than 3 reputable sources and/or authors (such as universities or other science labs).
When I research health and nutrition topics for myself, I apply the same criteria.
You do realize that's in a large part the argument from authority logical fallacy right?
How so?0 -
I work for a science lab, so I am always researching scientific articles for my boss. His standards are that they must come from a peer-reviewed source, always cite sources, and list more than 3 reputable sources and/or authors (such as universities or other science labs).
When I research health and nutrition topics for myself, I apply the same criteria.
You do realize that's in a large part the argument from authority logical fallacy right?
Uhh, no. Blindly accepting information because it came from someone with a degree would be an appeal to authority and logical fallacy. In this case, the peer-review process is just there to determine whether or not a piece of work has met a certain set of criteria for methodology, etc. It's not as if the peer-review process is some monolithic authority putting stamps of approval on papers that we should tacitly accept as fact.
That said, the peer review process isn't perfect, but we work with what we have.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I work for a science lab, so I am always researching scientific articles for my boss. His standards are that they must come from a peer-reviewed source, always cite sources, and list more than 3 reputable sources and/or authors (such as universities or other science labs).
When I research health and nutrition topics for myself, I apply the same criteria.
You do realize that's in a large part the argument from authority logical fallacy right?
How so?
If part of the requirement to establish the merit of a study is determined by who wrote it and who supports it not the content itself that's the definition of argument from authority. You can have really well conducted studies from smaller organizations or non-reputable authors.
why would a 'smaller oganization' not submit thier research to a peer reviewed journal? the cited sources don't have to 'support' the research, its just relivant information, indicating the authors did background research before they conducted thier own.
he didn't say anything about who happend to author the research being a factor.0 -
Usually the one with the most peer reviewed clinical studies evidence for their side wins my vote.One thing I've noticed in my few months here is that for every post that seems to be scientific and well-founded information, there's another equally scientific and well-founded post that says exactly the opposite.
How do you guys determine which one is true? Are there certain sites you trust and others you avoid?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Uhh, no. Blindly accepting information because it came from someone with a degree would be an appeal to authority and logical fallacy.
Oh great you again. Except that if you rule out a study because it's not written by a notable author it's indeed a logical fallacy.It's not as if the peer-review process is some monolithic authority putting stamps of approval on papers that we should tacitly accept as fact.
Except that actually happens.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/
All of that might mean something if the peer review process was the same across the board. Of course it isn't, which makes the problem a reform a bit more complex.
As it is, the peer review is only as good as the reviewers. The article you link indicates that the papers weren't actually reviewed. That's a problem with the reviewers, the not concept of peer review.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I choose the ones that make logical sense but again I am logical? probably not.. if I like a theory, I usually take it for a run for a while to see myself...but again I am not logical nor consistent so the result could be totally off...0
-
This content has been removed.
-
And let's take a look at what happens in these forums from a realistic standpoint.
Person A makes a claim.
Person B asks for a citation, stating a preference for peer-reviewed information.
People want the peer reviewed paper because it'll actually have data in it that they can talk about. Sure, we could point to blog entries with no citations of any sort, but why bother? It might as well be fiction or anecdote.
I don't think anyone who seriously engages in a discussion here looks at a peer reviewed paper and just assumes they'll like what they see. People ask for a peer reviewed paper so they can pick it apart and show how it isn't actually evidence...or defend it.
To be frank, if you prop up something as evidence for what you're saying and can't spot egregious errors that should have been picked apart by a review process, then you shouldn't be having the discussion in the first place.
If someone wants to hold the belief that they're equally likely to get legitimate research from a peer-reviewed source as not, then that's merely their opinion.0 -
Except that actually happens.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/
here is the Science article that this came from
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
its an interesting read. Didn't realize there were Open access scientific Journals that are free to the public but charge the autor a fee.
If you went to college in the days when you actually had to crack open a book, and the peer reviewed journal in question was in the libraries periodicals (like Science was), its a safe bet its a good source.
Science also happend to say that Open access scientific Journals which had been called out in the past actually provided some of the most stringent peer review0 -
Honestly? I don't. I listen to my body and pay attention to what gives me results. The rest is really just noise. Every body is different - in different environments, stress levels, medical issues, access to food, etc. I just try to eat good food and stay active.
[/quote]
for me thats about the most sensible thing i've read in these forums. a lot of this stuff is trial and error, the science can point you in the right direction,but there is no one size fits all solution. thats why there are so many conflicting studies.0 -
It's not as if the peer-review process is some monolithic authority putting stamps of approval on papers that we should tacitly accept as fact.
Except that actually happens.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/
All of that might mean something if the peer review process was the same across the board. Of course it isn't, which makes the problem a reform a bit more complex.
As it is, the peer review is only as good as the reviewers. The article you link indicates that the papers weren't actually reviewed. That's a problem with the reviewers, the not concept of peer review.
Do you ever stop to listen to yourself? I'm trying to say that in general you cannot trust a scientific article that is published because there's no guarantee it was peer reviewed well and you want to vindicate this by saying it wasn't reviewed at all so that's a different issue?
If you're suggesting that this example indicates that no reviewed paper can be trusted, then you're the one who needs to stop and think. By that logic, no one should donate to charities because sometimes they're fraudulent.
EDIT: from above, If someone wants to hold the belief that they're equally likely to get legitimate research from a peer-reviewed source as not, then that's merely their opinion.0 -
I work for a science lab, so I am always researching scientific articles for my boss. His standards are that they must come from a peer-reviewed source, always cite sources, and list more than 3 reputable sources and/or authors (such as universities or other science labs).
When I research health and nutrition topics for myself, I apply the same criteria.
why would a 'smaller oganization' not submit thier research to a peer reviewed journal? the cited sources don't have to 'support' the research, its just relivant information, indicating the authors did background research before they conducted thier own.
he didn't say anything about who happend to author the research being a factor.
I didn't say anything about not being peer reviewed or not cite sources, yes those obviously should happen. But having to list at least 3 reputable sources and/or authors as part of the requirement is what makes it so.
oh i see, the identity and rep of the sources is what you were saying mattered by his standard and perhaps shouldn't.
you make good points.
agree that one should always evaluate info on thier own as best they can, but no matter how well versed on is on a subject, i think we all have (or should have) sources that we will trust over others0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's not as if the peer-review process is some monolithic authority putting stamps of approval on papers that we should tacitly accept as fact.
Except that actually happens.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/
All of that might mean something if the peer review process was the same across the board. Of course it isn't, which makes the problem a reform a bit more complex.
As it is, the peer review is only as good as the reviewers. The article you link indicates that the papers weren't actually reviewed. That's a problem with the reviewers, the not concept of peer review.
Do you ever stop to listen to yourself? I'm trying to say that in general you cannot trust a scientific article that is published because there's no guarantee it was peer reviewed well and you want to vindicate this by saying it wasn't reviewed at all so that's a different issue?
If you're suggesting that this example indicates that no reviewed paper can be trusted, then you're the one who needs to stop and think. By that logic, no one should donate to charities because sometimes they're fraudulent.
i think he's just saying that, with the industry such as it is, just finding an article in a publication that happens to identify itself as 'peer reviewed' isn't much indicaton that it was actually reviewed at all.
thats why i was saying trust the sources you remember from your college library lol
btw, i'm old0 -
This content has been removed.
-
And let's take a look at what happens in these forums from a realistic standpoint.
Except the OP is asking as very pointed question about evaluating two scientific sources in conflict, not blog or forum rantings.
I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. It's not that related to why you got involved in the first place. You started out by quoting someone who explained their criteria for source selection. You then called it an appeal to authority...which has nothing to do specifically with two sources in conflict in itself. The two sources could go through the same vetting process and still be in conflict.
Stop moving the goal post0 -
This content has been removed.
-
agree that one should always evaluate info on thier own as best they can, but no matter how well versed on is on a subject, i think we all have (or should have) sources that we will trust over others
And I'm in agreement on that for the most part. Most of us can't take the time to evaluate every single topic so we have to rely on trusted sources to analyze it for us; however, this is part of how so much myth propagates the internet. Every now and then we all need to do our own fact checking...
it's very tempting and easy to fall into the trap of an argument for the sake of argument..just sayin~0 -
This content has been removed.
-
One thing I've noticed in my few months here is that for every post that seems to be scientific and well-founded information, there's another equally scientific and well-founded post that says exactly the opposite.
How do you guys determine which one is true? Are there certain sites you trust and others you avoid?
Its not 100% spelled out, but, to be fair, it seems clear that she's talking about two opposing posts in the MFP forum.
which could be cut and pasted from where ever, but still0 -
If you're suggesting that this example indicates that no reviewed paper can be trusted, then you're the one who needs to stop and think. By that logic, no one should donate to charities because sometimes they're fraudulent.
EDIT: from above, If someone wants to hold the belief that they're equally likely to get legitimate research from a peer-reviewed source as not, then that's merely their opinion.
Not at all. It just means if an organization calls themselves charitable you should look into whether or not they're actually charitable for yourself and not take their word.
No one asks for a peer reviewed source because they're looking for a holy grail on whatever topic. They're asking for it because they think i'll be more likely to have "higher quality" data by virtue of going through a filtration process.
If you think the exceptions that pass through the process when they shouldn't negate the usefulness of it, then that's merely your opinion. Present whatever data you like, It'll get picked apart equally.
For example, I don't discount something because it's a blog. If it's a blog that doesn't cite its sources, though, I'm comfortable discounting the data, even if what they say is a decent conclusion based on the discounted data.0 -
As a rule I really don't trust anything about weight loss unless the advice is to eat healthy nutritious food in quantities less than you need to sustain your weight while endeavoring to get a little exercise along the way.
Never understood how a multi-billion dollar industry managed to pop up that by and large tells folks to do anything but that (i.e. drink a shake, take a pill, have this surgery, read this book, don't eat these foods, etc.).
I got fat sitting on my butt all day drinking Mt. Dew and eating doughnuts, the mystery of weight loss does not seem so elusive to me that I would pay someone for their secret.0 -
Again, do you listen to yourself? The OP asked about evaluating two scientific sources then you change it to a forum and blog rantings. I'm moving the goal post by refocusing on evaluating scientific sources? Huh? Buddy you moved the goal post and I'm putting it back to where it was...Stop moving the goal post
Cute. Moving the goal posts to the original position when you hadn't been addressing that position in the first place (as I explained) doesn't count.
Keep trying.0 -
agree that one should always evaluate info on thier own as best they can, but no matter how well versed on is on a subject, i think we all have (or should have) sources that we will trust over others
And I'm in agreement on that for the most part. Most of us can't take the time to evaluate every single topic so we have to rely on trusted sources to analyze it for us; however, this is part of how so much myth propagates the internet. Every now and then we all need to do our own fact checking...
it's very tempting and easy to fall into the trap of an argument for the sake of argument..just sayin~
aren't we just here for that? lol i thought that was the entertainment0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions