studies are spreading misinformation : Othor Games

» Tue May 17, 2011 12:30 pm

Irony overload. Brain hurt... ow. Please stop the irony hurts brain. It's a [censored] double whammy of irony. Too much...

» Tue May 17, 2011 4:51 am

Irony overload. Brain hurt... ow. Please stop the irony hurts brain. It's a [censored] double whammy of irony. Too much...

I don't get what's so ironic about someone using their collected sample of various studies, which is a statistic, to label all studies and statistics untrustworthy based on their own faulty find--- oh I see it now!

:P

» Tue May 17, 2011 2:14 am

That's one of them, it's a little crude but it works.

» Tue May 17, 2011 10:24 am

... Plus, you know, politics and all that.

yeah, I'm pushing the envelope. Sorry, I'll chill.
(But honestly, it's really difficult to discuss statistics without bringing up the "G" word.)

See, the problem with that is you have a fundamental issue with both statistics and studies - your bias (much as I am biased) is to disbelieve the studies because of your past experience. But, also, even if those studies are corroborated by other studies... you still disbelieve them (or so I understand). What does it take, then, to satisfy your disbelieving nature?

No, I was unclear, I guess. I will accept something that I initially didn't believe if it is corroborated by multiple, impartial or unrelated sources...

Also... where are you finding all these examples of institutions telling lies?

In addition to the ones I mentioned in post #86?
Global warming...
Mandatory chlorination of drinking water...
Alcohol related vs. alcohol caused traffic accidents...
The ephedrine ban...

Consider that corporations are making billions of dollars off of the manipulation of the results of the studies related to these topics... then consider the cost:benefit ratio to society in general, since the data is twisted to apperar that they are doing it "for our own good".
I still say, if it walks like one and quacks like one, then it must be one.

I don't get what's so ironic about someone using their collected sample of various studies, which is a statistic, to label all studies and statistics untrustworthy based on their own faulty find--- oh I see it now!

:P

HEY! :slap:
Sarcasm is my gig.
Get your own act!

» Tue May 17, 2011 10:03 am

I think the bigger problem is people discrediting studies based not on the study itself, but the headline worthy conclusion, and their own personal world view.

If you'd done your own actual study OP, and taken the time to gather evidence, then I might be more inclined to agree with you, but as it is I think that titles like "studies are spreading misinformation" are spreading much more misinformation than any study.

» Tue May 17, 2011 6:57 am

Dang that was an interesting debate.

*picks popcorn hull out of tooth*

» Tue May 17, 2011 3:09 pm

I think the bigger problem is people discrediting studies based not on the study itself, but the headline worthy conclusion, and their own personal world view.
...

Absolutely, you're right! What was I thinking?

I need other people telling me what to think and how to think it, or else I would just be some kind of drooling idiot.
Who am I to question what they say? I don't know a god damned thing, myself.
How could I have possibly been so obtuse?

From now on, I'll be the obsequious little sycophant, and think what I'm told to think, and only what I'm told to think, only when I'm told to think it...
And if anyone ever says anything without some university study to back it up, I'll just assume they are blowing hot air out of their [censored], okay?
Okay.

» Tue May 17, 2011 7:02 am

Interesting topic. I didn't read all of it, but will jsut blurt out some thoughts.

Part of the problem may not be the studies themselves, but the reporting. A 2 minute report on a news program, vs. a 30 second commerical, vs. 30 minutes with the authors on NPR's Science Friday. What information and how throughly it gets reported is often filterd by media because of time contraints.

Another aspect is ratings. A two minute blurb on a new oncology therapy better have something shocking or emotional (or Jenny McCarthy) for it to make it to TV news! That also leads to HOW it gets reported. What words are selected to paraphrase the results? What images on TV go along with the report? How do the announcers react?

Also, there's of course personal biases against science, media, corporations, etc. that also allow receivers to accept or dismiss results...rationally or irrationally.

Eh, I'd love to sit and discuss this over some beers....good brain food :foodndrink:

» Tue May 17, 2011 1:20 pm

No, I was unclear, I guess. I will accept something that I initially didn't believe if it is corroborated by multiple, impartial or unrelated sources...

Ah, I see. That makes sense. So if multiple, independent studies examine a topic and come to the same conclusions, then you'll accept it.

In addition to the ones I mentioned in post #86?
Global warming...

There is a huge amount of controversary surrounding this topic and it probably is against the forum rules to discuss it. Let's just agree that, regardless of the consequences in terms of temperature, burning fossil fuels is probably a bad idea, if only in terms of direct human impact (i.e asthma, lung disease, etc).

Mandatory chlorination of drinking water...

While there is evidence that chlorination of drinking water can produce by-products that may cause allergic reactions and problems with respiration (see Kohlhammer & Heinrich, 2007), chlorination also kills some nasty, nasty diseases that otherwise fester in still water such as swimming pools and lakes.
Abstract

Spoiler

Although chlorine and most of its derivates are known toxic agents, it has been pronounced as a safe disinfectant for water treatments. More detailed anolyses and extended studies concerning chlorine safety have only started recently. The objective of this article was to review data on the use of chlorine in pool environments, the resulting chlorination by-products in these environments and their potential effects on allergic and respiratory health in humans.

The MEDLINE database search comprised articles from 1966 to August 2006. Additional studies were identified by searching references of already published articles. A total of twenty-one studies evaluating effects of chlorine and its byproducts on allergic or respiratory health were included in the anolysis. Exposure to chlorination by-products through swimming pool attendance showed adverse health effects on children, subjects occupationally exposed, athletic swimmers and asthmatic subjects. These adverse effects were seen despite the presence of official directives in most countries to control and regulate the use of chlorine for water disinfection. Contact to chlorination by-products might not be the leading reason for poor respiratory health, but might not be as harmless as earlier thought. In particular, baby swimming in chlorinated pools is highly questionable.

Source: Kohlhammer, Y., & Heinrich, J. (2007). Chlorine, Chlorination By-Products and Their Allergic and Respiratory Health Effects. Current Respiratory Medicine Reviews, 3(1), 39-47. doi:10.2174/157339807779941839

Alcohol related vs. alcohol caused traffic accidents...

I think here you are picking at semantics. But maybe I'm wrong. Either way, driving drunk is dangerous, stupid and liable to get someone (else) killed. You can't argue with the fact that thousands of people are killed each year in the U.S alone by drunk drivers.

The ephedrine ban...

Ephedrine isn't banned. It's just banned in dietary supplements. People can still get it via a prescription. Plus, ephedrine is linked to a whole lot of bad things: psychiatric symptoms, heart palpitations and gastrointestinal issues (Worley & Lindbloom, 2003).
Abstract:

Spoiler

Products containing ephedrine and ephedra promote a 0.6-1.0 kg/mo weight loss over 2 to 6 months. However, the impact of these products on long-term weight loss or athletic performance is uncertain. Their use is associated with a 2- to 3-fold higher rate of psychiatric symptoms, autonomic hyperactivity, upper gastrointestinal symptoms, and heart palpitations. Several serious adverse events--such as death, myocardial infarction, and stroke--have been reported, with a rate estimated at <0.1%.

Source: Worley, C., & Lindbloom, E. (2003). Ephedra and ephedrine: Modest short-term weight loss, with a price. Journal of Family Practice, 52(7), 518-520. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Consider that corporations are making billions of dollars off of the manipulation of the results of the studies related to these topics... then consider the cost:benefit ratio to society in general, since the data is twisted to apperar that they are doing it "for our own good".
I still say, if it walks like one and quacks like one, then it must be one.

Again, where are you seeing corporations making billions of dollars off of the manipulation of study results? How are they even manipulating the studies? You are providing no clear evidence for your accusations.

» Tue May 17, 2011 6:28 am

Absolutely, you're right! What was I thinking?

I need other people telling me what to think and how to think it, or else I would just be some kind of drooling idiot.
Who am I to question what they say? I don't know a god damned thing, myself.
How could I have possibly been so obtuse?

From now on, I'll be the obsequious little sycophant, and think what I'm told to think, and only what I'm told to think, only when I'm told to think it...
And if anyone ever says anything without some university study to back it up, I'll just assume they are blowing hot air out of their [censored], okay?
Okay.

You're an ass, I was mostly referring to things like studies saying that video games can cause violent behavior, which will promptly be rebutted by "But I'm not violent!". Experience isn't evidence.

And good, if someone makes a claim without evidence, you shouldn't say that they are blowing hot air out of their ass, you should refuse to believe them until they come up with some.