Why So Much Science is Wrong, False, Puffed, or Misleading

[HRM Resident]

https://www.aier.org/article/why-so-much-science-is-wrong-false-puffed-or-misleading/

>snip<

Well-referenced and comprehensively cited, Ritchie reports huge problems
with the following hyped stories:

- Larger plates make you eat more.

- Going to the supermarket hungry makes you buy more calories.

- Eggs cause cardiovascular disease.

- In messy or dirty environments people display more racial stereotypes.

- Power posing (manspreading or placing your hands aggressively on your
hips) creates a psychological and hormonal boost that correlates with
higher risk tolerance and better life outcomes.

-Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment and the inhuman cruelty by people in
authority ( debunked perhaps most effectively by Gina Perry's many
in-depth writings on famous psychology experiments).

-Sleeping less than six hours a night "demolishes your immune system [,] doubling your risk
of cancer," as the best-selling book Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker claimed.

All wrong. Every one of these much-publicized and discussed claims
include at least one of the following: misleading conclusions not
warranted by the research itself; fabricated data; data man-handled to
pass significance tests; incompetent experimental designs; or
experiments that wouldn't replicate when tried by other scientists.
Taking them apart for a non-expert audience is where Ritchie really
shines.

>snip<

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

Yes, they were all wrong. Note that they all belong to
the soft sciences; mostly psychology (pop-psychology)
or medicine.

The one about eggs causing heart disease was guilt
by association, not actual experimental results.

Medical science news is full of correlation evidence,
nutrition science in particular, where correlation can be influenced
by confounders and is often wrong. The other factor is publication
bias for p<.05 results. If many studies study the same thing
and only one gets p<.05 that's the one that gets published and is
very likely only a chance result.

This happens very rarely in physics where discoveries require
p<.000001 with at least one replication.

Journalists often jump the gun. They are eager to report
something new and sometimes exaggerate its importance.
Don't know what can be done about that.

Anyway take medical news with a grain of salt and
psychology news with two grains of salt.

The bloke in the street can't know that though. Journals
need higher standards and journalists need higher
standards and the public needs better education.

It does however happen that even with best evidence
a conclusion can change when new information
emerges. Science is not dogma. It can and will change
when new information warrants it.

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> Yes, they were all wrong.

>snip<

> Science is not dogma. It can and will change
> when new information warrants it.

It must be hard to keep up the faith. Science is guesswork, with
"scientists" self-proclaiming their expertise as the wisest decision
makers and discovers of new "stuff!"

Then their new ideas turn out to be bunk, and they have to defend
their incorrect guesses by claiming they are "always learning something
new." That's the answer. Faith that something new will be discovered
someday to prove something. Join an organized religion, and forget
the church of perpetual motion or whatever you believe in! :-) I think
you'd make a good Mennonite. :-)

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

All of that is true about science. It can, and does, change its conclusions
when new data warrants it. This is how it works. It can't work any other
way.

There is no faith required. And yes, a scientific "guess" is better than
other guesses because it is based on the best avaailable evidence.
I don't know why you insist that science be dogma. That makes no
sense at all.

Perhaps you should seek out an anti-science cult. You might
be happier there. :)

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> All of that is true about science. It can, and does, change its conclusions
> when new data warrants it. This is how it works. It can't work any other
> way.
>

It is a dogma. Just not the kind you like. It's become a
religion for many. Sad.

With the way humans are depending more and more onscience to live
our daily lives, our species will surely not exist a couple hundred years
from now.

Your heroes have gone too far. Science will not only go too far in
the near future, it's already going too far. And it's frightening.
Surely scientists themselves must know this and realize the depths of
this potentially disastrous situation we may soon found ourselves in.

Also, there's more to worry about than just biological warfare,
cloning, and Artificial Intelligence - there're tons of ways science goes
too far. It used to be that oil industry fueled the cars for people to
get around where they needed to go just a bit faster. Now it's a multi-
billion dollar industry. Countries go to war and kill innocent people
for it. Science went much too far on that one. Scientists ought to take
a break and watch TV! They get too many kudos for the few achievements
they manage to stumble across.

What is this anti-science cult you want me to join?

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Tuesday, 29 November 2022 at 13:03:11 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > All of that is true about science. It can, and does, change its conclusions
> > when new data warrants it. This is how it works. It can't work any other
> > way.
> >
> It is a dogma. Just not the kind you like. It's become a
> religion for many. Sad.

I can't see how being open minded and using the best evidence available
and being willing to change when warranted by evidence can in any way
be dogma. You do not understand the meaning of the word.

>
> With the way humans are depending more and more onscience to live
> our daily lives, our species will surely not exist a couple hundred years
> from now.

Really? Would depending on science if humans ease to exist be the
reason for it? I would think human irrationality would be a more
likely reason.

>
> Your heroes have gone too far. Science will not only go too far in
> the near future, it's already going too far. And it's frightening.
> Surely scientists themselves must know this and realize the depths of
> this potentially disastrous situation we may soon found ourselves in.

Science is unstoppable. You may wish to turn back the clock a few
centuries but it can't happen.

Why do you say science has gone too far? Is it bad to know things?
Why do you think knowledge is bad?

>
> Also, there's more to worry about than just biological warfare,
> cloning, and Artificial Intelligence - there're tons of ways science goes
> too far. It used to be that oil industry fueled the cars for people to
> get around where they needed to go just a bit faster. Now it's a multi-
> billion dollar industry. Countries go to war and kill innocent people
> for it. Science went much too far on that one. Scientists ought to take
> a break and watch TV! They get too many kudos for the few achievements
> they manage to stumble across.

Science didn't do any of those things. Humans who exploited science did
that and in spite of the things you listed science has lead to far more good
than harm.

>
> What is this anti-science cult you want me to join?

You already sound a lot like an anti-vaxxer; why not
try there?

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> You already sound a lot like an anti-vaxxer; why not
> try there?
>

There's no point in getting yourself into a huff because someone
has made fun of your religion. Others (outside the Church of Perpetual
Motion) don't call you an anti-vaxxer. You sound just like any other
passionate believer in the religion of their choice . . . when someone
disparages their dogma.

You picked the Church of Petutal Mothin, and that's fine. Others
are Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. It's OK to believe in
something. You picked cosmic radiation background and electrons. No
worries! I think it's better than voodoo! :-)

PS - This is from gnus (Emacs) on a Raspberry Pi running Debian 11
Linux. This is a neat Usenet program. There's a Windows version.

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Tuesday, 29 November 2022 at 15:33:01 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > You already sound a lot like an anti-vaxxer; why not
> > try there?
> >
> There's no point in getting yourself into a huff because someone
> has made fun of your religion. Others (outside the Church of Perpetual
> Motion) don't call you an anti-vaxxer. You sound just like any other
> passionate believer in the religion of their choice . . . when someone
> disparages their dogma.

So much gaslighting! I keep saying science is not dogma. I even prove
that science is not dogma. Yet you persist. I think you may need
professional help. :)

>
> You picked the Church of Petutal Mothin, and that's fine. Others
> are Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. It's OK to believe in
> something. You picked cosmic radiation background and electrons. No
> worries! I think it's better than voodoo! :-)

It's much better!! :)

>
> PS - This is from gnus (Emacs) on a Raspberry Pi running Debian 11
> Linux. This is a neat Usenet program. There's a Windows version.

There is but windows warm me it is dangerous. It probably isn't but
I am hypercautious. I've been burned once before and had to start
over from scratch. That's too painful to risk.

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> There is but windows warm me it is dangerous. It probably isn't but
> I am hypercautious. I've been burned once before and had to start
> over from scratch. That's too painful to risk.
>

Send me your Windows system and I'll set it up for you. I'll need
all your passwords, security questions and answers, and your CC number
in case Microsoft wants a fee to allow it to be installed. :-)

Or . . . you can ignore Microsoft and put it on anyhow. Don't be a
chicken shit!

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

Chicken shit is better than BBQ chicken. :)