Separating Fact From Fiction

Options
13

Replies

  • albayin
    albayin Posts: 2,524 Member
    Options
    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...
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    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.
  • No_Finish_Line
    No_Finish_Line Posts: 3,662 Member
    Options
    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 review
  • fozzie500
    fozzie500 Posts: 177 Member
    Options
    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.
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    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.
  • No_Finish_Line
    No_Finish_Line Posts: 3,662 Member
    Options
    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 others
  • No_Finish_Line
    No_Finish_Line Posts: 3,662 Member
    Options
    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 old
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    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 post
  • albayin
    albayin Posts: 2,524 Member
    Options
    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~
  • No_Finish_Line
    No_Finish_Line Posts: 3,662 Member
    Options
    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 still
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    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.
  • segovm
    segovm Posts: 512 Member
    Options
    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.
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    Stop moving the goal post
    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...

    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.
  • No_Finish_Line
    No_Finish_Line Posts: 3,662 Member
    Options
    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

Categories