Science for dummies

[Homesteaded]

There is a website out there that lays out why smoking is good for you. It's hilarious but I can't find it right now. My story is over and it was a good story.

[Encroaching Death]

Originally Posted by Homesteaded [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is a website out there that lays out why smoking is good for you. It's hilarious but I can't find it right now. My story is over and it was a good story.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8746297/

[Reiwa]

[Jibartik]

Religion was science, once.

[unsunghero]

Due to how easy it has become to manipulate data, samples, etc, and the fact funding is often provided by an entity with a particular interest in the outcome of a “study”, I immediately discredit and completely ignore any study I see

If it’s a peer-reviewed meta analysis, this means it’s a collection of many, many studies that has been reviewed…these I’ll still give about 20% credibility towards

Science is easy to manipulate for one’s own interests

[loramin]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Due to how easy it has become to manipulate data, samples, etc, and the fact funding is often provided by an entity with a particular interest in the outcome of a “study”, I immediately discredit and completely ignore any study I see

If it’s a peer-reviewed meta analysis, this means it’s a collection of many, many studies that has been reviewed…these I’ll still give about 20% credibility towards

Science is easy to manipulate for one’s own interests

Spoken by someone who clearly has no understanding of how science works.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Spoken by someone who clearly has no understanding of how science works.

Lol ok mr scientist explain to me how many studies you believe were funded by entities interested in a particular outcome. None?

Remember when cigarette companies funded studies showing how smoking wasn’t that bad?

Remember when the ridiculously unhealthy food pyramid studies were funded by grain companies?

How about testing drug safety funded by the companies that sell the drugs, that oh golly gee look the drug is proven as safe by studies then goes on to harm people?

You can manipulate the sample, you can manipulate the data parameters, you can manipulate the control group, you can manipulate the test executed


Anyone who thinks studies aren’t easy to manipulate is a combination of stupid and naive

[loramin]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol ok mr scientist explain to me how many studies you believe were funded by entities interested in a particular outcome. None?

Remember when cigarette companies funded studies showing how smoking wasn’t that bad?

Remember when the ridiculously unhealthy food pyramid studies were funded by grain companies?

How about testing drug safety funded by the companies that sell the drugs, that oh golly gee look the drug is proven as safe by studies then goes on to harm people?

You can manipulate the sample, you can manipulate the data parameters, you can manipulate the control group, you can manipulate the test executed


Anyone who thinks studies aren’t easy to manipulate is a combination of stupid and naive

Again, you're speaking from a place of massive ignorance, as the examples you list aren't examples of science failings.

Can humans (eg. cigarette-selling humans) mislead other humans ... in science or anywhere else, to some extent? Sure. But scientists weren't convinced of anything by misleading, un-peer-reviewed, or unreproducible tobacco studies. Politicians were.

Same deal with the food pyramid: there was never a "food pyramid study"! What there was a bunch of legitimate dietary studies ... and then (again) a bunch of politicians, influenced by farm lobbies and such, who ignored many of those studies, so they could give us the food pyramid.

Drug safety? Obviously, there's a tension between wanting to make drugs safe, and wanting to get new drugs to sick people as quickly as possible. But (again), scientists don't make those decisions: government regulators (whose bosses are politicians) do.

Ultimately you're misunderstanding science, and blaming it for stuff that has nothing to do with it ... and everything to do with politics and politicians deliberately ignoring scientists to push their own special interests.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, you're speaking from a place of massive ignorance, as the examples you list aren't examples of science failings.

Can humans (eg. cigarette-selling humans) mislead other humans ... in science or anywhere else, to some extent? Sure. But scientists weren't convinced of anything by misleading, un-peer-reviewed, or unreproducible tobacco studies. Politicians were.

Same deal with the food pyramid: there was never a "food pyramid study"! What there was a bunch of legitimate dietary studies ... and then (again) a bunch of politicians, influenced by farm lobbies and such, who ignored many of those studies, so they could give us the food pyramid.

Drug safety? Obviously, there's a tension between wanting to make drugs safe, and wanting to get new drugs to sick people as quickly as possible. But (again), scientists don't make those decisions: government regulators (whose bosses are politicians) do.

Ultimately you're misunderstanding science, and blaming it for stuff that has nothing to do with it ... and everything to do with politics and politicians deliberately ignoring scientists to push their own special interests.

Did I attack science in my original post you quoted?

Let’s take a looksee:

“Due to how easy it has become to manipulate data, samples, etc, and the fact funding is often provided by an entity with a particular interest in the outcome of a “study”, I immediately discredit and completely ignore any study I see”

Seems like I mentioned how easy it is to put forth a bogus study due to some ulterior motive

Where did I attack your atheist God, Science, again?

Oh that’s right, you threw out a red herring and then claimed I attacked science so you could have something to argue about

Find better excuses to argue with people online next time. I never attacked the concept of science. I said a shitload of studies are complete bullshit, to the point where ONLY peer reviewed meta analysis I pay attention to, and even THOSE can be manipulated to present a narrative

[Jibartik]

Religion causes wars!!

Kills 300k people for NATO