Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phototoxin wrote:
Also for bad papers has anyone read the Acupuncture paper about 2 months ago that basically showed that acupuncture as the same effect as a placebo then concluded acupuncture is great?

Something makes me doubt that the conclusion was "acupuncture if great". It seems more likely that the conclusion was a section at the end of the paper in question, of roughly 2-3 pages in length, which discussed the possible uses of acupuncture given the available data.

However this wouldn't be the first paper to conclude that acupuncture is useful because of its ability to produce a placebo effect, as placebos have long been known to be effective in reducing negative symptoms in a number of patients.

The problem with the "go read the study" argument is that many studies are done in journals where a subscription is costly, or time consuming to obtain. People can't be bothered because the current structure of academia keeps knowledge bound up inside profit making structures on purpose.
The other problem is that I am skeptical of a layman's ability to properly criticise a methodology. It's a tricky business and requires specialist knowledge. It's why they don't let just anyone peer review articles for publication.

Some skepticism of science is healthy, but a skeptic has a responsibility to be informed.

I agree, I can find the money for the new hardbound Harry Potter release, but an academic journal? That is outrageous for learnin words.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
To me, IMO the "scientific process" should go something more along the lines of, "is there an affect from doing activity X, and if so, what is it?" not, "Activity X causes this to happen, and that's bad (or good)"

The problem is the legitimate study of a given phenomenon requires a fairly narrow, directional hypothesis. When you submit a research proposal you cannot simply hypothesize that there is an effect, because the answer is yes if there is any way to measure the existence of the phenomenon in question. Instead, you have to hypothesize something like "It is believed that consistent exposure to third-hand smoke prior to the third month of pregnancy increases the prevalence of genetic defects in the population of children born to pregnant services workers employed in California hotels."

In order to engage in the scientific method you need to have some expectation regarding what will be found, otherwise successful experimental design would simply be a matter of luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:The problem with the "go read the study" argument is that many studies are done in journals where a subscription is costly, or time consuming to obtain. People can't be bothered because the current structure of academia keeps knowledge bound up inside profit making structures on purpose.

And its getting worse now that university presses are being replaced by for-profit publishers/distributors.

Da Boss wrote:
The other problem is that I am skeptical of a layman's ability to properly criticise a methodology. It's a tricky business and requires specialist knowledge. It's why they don't let just anyone peer review articles for publication.

Honestly, I'm skeptical of the ability of some scientists to criticize methodology.

Well, that too. You've just gotta hope the crap science goes nowhere because it doesn't work, and the good science stays put because it does.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Albatross wrote:Wait, I'm lost - how does banning animal testing infringe upon a persons 1st Amendment rights?

Moreover, if it did, why should that matter?

By and large, from what I have read, most corporations are supposed to be treated as individual citizens for many things, such as the Freedom of Speech, and as anonymous donators to political campaigns.

True, but animal cruelty isn't, as far as I know, a criminal offense which is thought to countermand the 1st Amendment.