Separating Fact From Fiction

albayin

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 entertainment

tempting, tempting...but I won't say anything because I see the trap now...:bigsmile:

No_Finish_Line

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.

idk, it depends on the ratio of actual peer reviewed journals to ones where you simply pay to have it published as pointed out in the article (published by Science, an actual peer reviewed journal)

The impression i got from reading it was not that the open access journals peer review process was poor, it was non-existant. Basically a wide open door.

No_Finish_Line

Has any of this been helpful OP? lol

wamydia

I'm going to agree with many of the people here who are saying that often the truth of two conflicting source lies somewhere in the middle. But I'm going to add that it's equally likely that two conflicting sources may only have bits and pieces of the truth and the real truth of something simply hasn't been figured out yet. Science is a never ending process of testing, analyzing, concluding, reconsidering, retesting, and changing conclusions to fit with new data. It is also true that some studies or individuals are pushing agendas, whether it be to sell an item or to just validate their own personal opinions. With that in mind, some suggestions:

Whenever someone uses extreme examples or absolutes (always and never), you really have to think about what they are saying the framework of reality. Was the study they are discussing really meant to be applied in that extreme way? Most of the time, the answer is no. You should read the study yourself and decide if you think they are making a general statement of something "in most cases" or are trying to say that something is always a certain way and there is no arguing with it. The latter will almost never happen.

Look at the dates of conflicting studies. Information that came out four years ago may be quite out of date by now due to the ongoing nature of research. You should look up more current research to try to find a consensus.

I agree that peer-reviewed articles are necessary for real information, however many people find them hard to understand due to the highly scientific nature and many people just don't have the understanding of science or statistics to really analyze their validity. Therefore many people dramatically misinterperet what they are reading. It is very hard to rely on the interpretations of others if you don't know what their credentials are. Try to find a reputable source (like the Mayo clinic, American Heart Association, etc) to give you a simplified answer to the question you are trying to answer, then return to the study and read it again to see if you agree.

In general, when people use the "but mice/ rats" aren't humans argument, I dismiss what they are saying immediately. This isn't meant to be offensive, however that statement shows a lack of understanding about how research is accomplished and makes me suspect that the individual saying it does not have a strong science background. Almost all research that supports current medical and science information that we know to be almost certainly true started in an animal model and there are good reasons for that. Don't let the "but those aren't human studies!" argument derail you from seriously considering the information in a study.

I hope this helps and just keep reading! You get a knack for it, the longer you do it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

EvanKeel

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.

Never said peer review isn't useful nor did I say charitable organizations don't help people, it's just that someone being peer reviewed or labeled charitable doesn't mean they really are. And that's just reality.

Peer reviews are useful and I'm glad they weed out at least some bad studies, but you can't rely on them to ensure quality of a published study.

Nor have I ever argued that they should be relied on in that way.

EvanKeel

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.

idk, it depends on the ratio of actual peer reviewed journals to ones where you simply pay to have it published as pointed out in the article (published by Science, an actual peer reviewed journal)

The impression i got from reading it was not that the open access journals peer review process was poor, it was non-existant. Basically a wide open door.

Yes, it sounds a lot like paying a charity and not having the money go to those in need, doesn't it?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

EvanKeel

Nor have I ever argued that they should be relied on in that way.

Except you did.

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.

Sorry, you're going to have spell that one out for me if you're able.

If this:

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.

equates to me saying that people should rely on the peer review process as the sole source of ensuring quality, then I just don't see it.

As far as I can see, all I've said there is that it's silly to to assume that any peer-reviewed paper can't be trusted because sometimes the process is flawed. Which not at all the same as advocating that we rely on it for ensuring sparkling examples of research.

missylectro

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.

What he/she said

FireOpalCO

In general, when people use the "but mice/ rats" aren't humans argument, I dismiss what they are saying immediately. This isn't meant to be offensive, however that statement shows a lack of understanding about how research is accomplished and makes me suspect that the individual saying it does not have a strong science background. Almost all research that supports current medical and science information that we know to be almost certainly true started in an animal model and there are good reasons for that. Don't let the "but those aren't human studies!" argument derail you from seriously considering the information in a study.

I respectfully disagree, or at least think you should list the exceptions. There are definitely types of research where we don't need to start disassembling humans to get a result. How muscle tissue contracts. That a certain chemical is flat out deadly if breathed in.

There are other fields of research where "hasn't been replicated in people" is a cautionary pause. They are working in areas where the differences between humans and lab animals may affect the outcome. For example, we have much more varied diets, much longer life spans, and a different gestational and maturation process. The research can rule out the "no way" and lead to "this could be promising" but not necessarily be directed transplanted to human application with some multiplication for difference in body weight. If this wasn't true we could just skip human trials on drugs.

wamydia

In general, when people use the "but mice/ rats" aren't humans argument, I dismiss what they are saying immediately. This isn't meant to be offensive, however that statement shows a lack of understanding about how research is accomplished and makes me suspect that the individual saying it does not have a strong science background. Almost all research that supports current medical and science information that we know to be almost certainly true started in an animal model and there are good reasons for that. Don't let the "but those aren't human studies!" argument derail you from seriously considering the information in a study.

I respectfully disagree, or at least think you should list the exceptions. There are definitely types of research where we don't need to start disassembling humans to get a result. How muscle tissue contracts. That a certain chemical is flat out deadly if breathed in.

There are other fields of research where "hasn't been replicated in people" is a cautionary pause. They are working in areas where the differences between humans and lab animals may affect the outcome. For example, we have much more varied diets, much longer life spans, and a different gestational and maturation process. The research can rule out the "no way" and lead to "this could be promising" but not necessarily be directed transplanted to human application with some multiplication for difference in body weight. If this wasn't true we could just skip human trials on drugs.

I am quite in agreement with you that findings from animal studies are not meant to be a direct translation to human systems and that "not replicated in humans" is a valid caution. What I'm taking issue with in my post is the practice of a blanket dismissal of the findings of an entire study based solely on the rationale that it was not performed on humans.

The purpose of animal studies is typically basic research -- identifying mechanisms and targets of biological/ physiological processes and diseases with the purpose of slowly moving forward toward human-based research or treatments. It works because the biochemical and physiological processes in animals often do mimic humans quite closely. For example, gene expression in the brains of rats and mice is actually quite similar to that in humans. In other cases, it is possible to create conditions that mimic humans (ie, it is possible to transplant the natural gut bacteria from a human into a mouse for study) or prove the safety of devices that might be able to help humans (ie. implantable blood pressure devices). If animals studies were not often quite relevant to human systems, there would be no point in doing them. Decades of biological and medical research has proven out that there is a point.

Now, does that mean that every single animal study that has ever been done is 100% translatable to humans and human systems? Of course not. It is the accumulation and consensus of many studies over time (whether animal or otherwise) that allows us to come to a degree of confidence about how a particular process or disease works in humans. Does it means that we should take into serious consideration any cautions that authors give us regarding repeatability in humans? Yes, of course it does. The research team that conducted the study is probably going to have a better grasp on the intricacies of how their animal model is different from the human system than most casual readers. However, none of that is a good enough reason to look at a study someone has posted, see it was done in rats, and then post "this is meaningless because it was done in rats and not in humans." There may be good information there and it is worthwhile to read it and continue researching the topic if a person is interested in it.

ETA: the quote I was replying to.