I do not need "studies" to tell me exercise is good for me or smoking bad. I understand the tenor of this piece, of course, and appreciate the sarcasm, but after spending the last three years trying to convince people of the most obvious flipping thing -- that something can only be said to "exist" if it's proven to exist --, I'm wondering what happened to the basic intuitive faculty of people that they require "studies" (and the prognostications of "experts") to predict the future (?) and tell them what's "real" or not. Not that people actually review all these false papers (they'll note the title or, at most, review the abstract), but they do certainly treat them as authoritative, thus regularly committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. If you have to resort to an "expert" or "study" to determine whether you can breathe freely when you go outside, then there's something seriously wrong with you. You are indeed "sick."
I of course agree we you. We don't need any studies, experts, doctors nor any drugs (not counting insulin as a drug). Though smoking was thought to be healthy and so many people, nearly everyone did it. While we have advertising being such a powerful factor- is it helpful to have people looking at epidemiology, which will prevent more people dying once they realised? Toxic brands of poppers can be banned?
What about policies? In societies we need to decide stuff. Should some people be selected to look into the impact of certain things on everyone else?
To answer your last question, i have come to the difficult answer of "NO". This should be purely a choice by the individual on who they decide to trust. Anyone who has the audacity to think they are worthy of the role of making decisions for others immediately disqualifies themselves. The only one I trust is the one saying "well I think this for this reason, but do your own research and come to your own conclusion". This would mean a very different society to what we have now,and that will scare a lot of people, but then these people that lack the inability to think for themselves scare the shit out of me and are in no position to foist their desired society on to me.
The problem with the notion of societies deciding stuff is the process. America likes to think that because it is a “democracy” (which it was never designed to be) group decisions are made by elections, but these are merely popularity contests. Complex issues are overly simplified to enable voting by ignorant people (I suspect BREXIT was one of these). Personally, I do not view the results of elections as societal decisions; in most cases, the real issues are obscured, deliberately, in order to solicit votes.
I thoroughly enjoyed the snarky flavor of this article today, it actually made things feel much better overall. Thank you for pointing out that there are a few quite important things that could be done to level the playing field rather than spend all our energy focusing on/fighting about the details of this & that. I'm ready to seize the day now!!
Hiya Cat, thank you for saying so, you're very welcome. Yes, I find it helpful to be flippant and sarky, it takes the power away. 'They' only have the power and attention that we give them.
I absolutely agree, we're getting bogged down in trying to fight little details.
My first encounter with this constant citation of 'studies' was when I began using social media in 2012.
It is amazing that I survived the previous six decades, held down various careers, raised a happy family, formed opinions and generally had a good time.
I also smoked.
One other minor point - lung cancer has increased since people were coerced to give up smoking. Now people are using nicotine patches to protect against whatever is the latest lurgy on the tell-lie-vision.
We're all going through that, and some are throwing out DNA and all microscopy with the bath water. Yes microscopy is an artefact and yes history is recorded with bias. But microscopy and telescopes can tell us much if we understand their limitations and biases tell us much about the authors times as well as own prejudices. It's still worth looking at small things up close and big things far away and reading texts and looking at objects from the past.
The use of microscopes is a skill that must be learned; if not, the meaning of the microscopic observations is worthless. As for studying history, it is risky relying on one book - few books about a subject cover it completely, and “completeness” for history may be an urban myth. Books are written by people who inevitably lack knowledge of all the details. If you adhere to the notion that everything is connected, then clearly one book, or even 20, is never enough to teach you what is.
I agree. Since 2023 I have acquired a tiny library of medicine-health books. But I realize there must be more that I haven't yet stumbled across. It does seem overwhelming. And each one is probably correct in at least one detail. This is what schools are for. My schooling is decades past, and limited to mathematics and business management. The medicine and health is a newer interest.
But the peer review eventually worked, after 50 years and many more deaths. Doctors would never have stopped saying smoke was healthy and promoting it, if not for the peer review. If we had been a smoker then, which we all probably would have been, would we have ignored these studies?
"Peer review" is only as good as the peers. If your peers are just as corrupt or ignorant as you, then peer review will never ensure the accuracy of your work.
We need to get away from popularity contests as indicators of truth.
I do not need "studies" to tell me exercise is good for me or smoking bad. I understand the tenor of this piece, of course, and appreciate the sarcasm, but after spending the last three years trying to convince people of the most obvious flipping thing -- that something can only be said to "exist" if it's proven to exist --, I'm wondering what happened to the basic intuitive faculty of people that they require "studies" (and the prognostications of "experts") to predict the future (?) and tell them what's "real" or not. Not that people actually review all these false papers (they'll note the title or, at most, review the abstract), but they do certainly treat them as authoritative, thus regularly committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. If you have to resort to an "expert" or "study" to determine whether you can breathe freely when you go outside, then there's something seriously wrong with you. You are indeed "sick."
I of course agree we you. We don't need any studies, experts, doctors nor any drugs (not counting insulin as a drug). Though smoking was thought to be healthy and so many people, nearly everyone did it. While we have advertising being such a powerful factor- is it helpful to have people looking at epidemiology, which will prevent more people dying once they realised? Toxic brands of poppers can be banned?
What about policies? In societies we need to decide stuff. Should some people be selected to look into the impact of certain things on everyone else?
To answer your last question, i have come to the difficult answer of "NO". This should be purely a choice by the individual on who they decide to trust. Anyone who has the audacity to think they are worthy of the role of making decisions for others immediately disqualifies themselves. The only one I trust is the one saying "well I think this for this reason, but do your own research and come to your own conclusion". This would mean a very different society to what we have now,and that will scare a lot of people, but then these people that lack the inability to think for themselves scare the shit out of me and are in no position to foist their desired society on to me.
The problem with the notion of societies deciding stuff is the process. America likes to think that because it is a “democracy” (which it was never designed to be) group decisions are made by elections, but these are merely popularity contests. Complex issues are overly simplified to enable voting by ignorant people (I suspect BREXIT was one of these). Personally, I do not view the results of elections as societal decisions; in most cases, the real issues are obscured, deliberately, in order to solicit votes.
Let me decide for myself - please.
I thoroughly enjoyed the snarky flavor of this article today, it actually made things feel much better overall. Thank you for pointing out that there are a few quite important things that could be done to level the playing field rather than spend all our energy focusing on/fighting about the details of this & that. I'm ready to seize the day now!!
Hiya Cat, thank you for saying so, you're very welcome. Yes, I find it helpful to be flippant and sarky, it takes the power away. 'They' only have the power and attention that we give them.
I absolutely agree, we're getting bogged down in trying to fight little details.
Enjoy your day! Sunny here in Old Blighty.
🙏🏽
My first encounter with this constant citation of 'studies' was when I began using social media in 2012.
It is amazing that I survived the previous six decades, held down various careers, raised a happy family, formed opinions and generally had a good time.
I also smoked.
One other minor point - lung cancer has increased since people were coerced to give up smoking. Now people are using nicotine patches to protect against whatever is the latest lurgy on the tell-lie-vision.
#clownworld
We're all going through that, and some are throwing out DNA and all microscopy with the bath water. Yes microscopy is an artefact and yes history is recorded with bias. But microscopy and telescopes can tell us much if we understand their limitations and biases tell us much about the authors times as well as own prejudices. It's still worth looking at small things up close and big things far away and reading texts and looking at objects from the past.
The use of microscopes is a skill that must be learned; if not, the meaning of the microscopic observations is worthless. As for studying history, it is risky relying on one book - few books about a subject cover it completely, and “completeness” for history may be an urban myth. Books are written by people who inevitably lack knowledge of all the details. If you adhere to the notion that everything is connected, then clearly one book, or even 20, is never enough to teach you what is.
I agree. Since 2023 I have acquired a tiny library of medicine-health books. But I realize there must be more that I haven't yet stumbled across. It does seem overwhelming. And each one is probably correct in at least one detail. This is what schools are for. My schooling is decades past, and limited to mathematics and business management. The medicine and health is a newer interest.
But the peer review eventually worked, after 50 years and many more deaths. Doctors would never have stopped saying smoke was healthy and promoting it, if not for the peer review. If we had been a smoker then, which we all probably would have been, would we have ignored these studies?
"Peer review" is only as good as the peers. If your peers are just as corrupt or ignorant as you, then peer review will never ensure the accuracy of your work.
We need to get away from popularity contests as indicators of truth.
I agree it's now utterly corrupt, but I still believe in science!
Def only evidenced based- I didn't say I believed scientists!