Hacker News Reader

Comment by ars | Hacker News Reader

This is a conjecture, not a study.

Sorry if that seems to be nitpicking, but I see too many "studies" like this. A study is supposed to report the truth of something that the author studied.

But this is an idea that the author liked and explored, and then wrote up.

Maybe we can keep calling these studies, and come up with another term for fact based studies. And not "theory" please, that word in a scientific context just confuses everyone.

Edit: "research paper" might be a good name (I saw someone else call it that in a post). i.e. "Research paper posits/theorizes/suggests that Fermented ....."

Also the paper itself doesn't call itself a study, it calls itself an article.

View on HN

That is not at all how science works. Outside of Mathematics, there is no such thing as Truth, only conjectures of varying certainties.

Also, research journals are really just fancy forum boards where researchers in a particular fields talk to each other, and even occasionally shit talk. They aren't ever supposed to be a source of truth, and in fact the first thing we learnt as grad student is how to critically read a research journal article and try to poke holes in the study. We are supposed to assume that the articles are wrong, until we can be convinced that they are likely to be correct.

Sometimes I think Google Scholars is a mistake. The general public aren't supposed to be exposed to research literature.

If I report that "I did this, and then this happened". That's close enough to the truth to call it that. It's available in not just Mathematics: Chemistry, Physics for example.

Then you have the type: "I saw this interesting thing", and that's also close enough to the truth. Geology, Astronomy, Archeology are examples.

That's a study.

But if I look at my own navel and decide "I like this idea because it makes sense to me", that's not a study. That type should get a different name. Theoretical Physics is the high quality version of this.

I'm not saying there's no value in this type of thing!! Just that it's not a study.

Maybe call them "research papers".

> Sometimes I think Google Scholars is a mistake. The general public aren't supposed to be exposed to research literature.

Yikes!!! So basically you want people to be sheep and just listen to what they are told, with no access to underlying material?

I'd rather people look at the source, and understand it poorly, vs not look at it at all.

> If I report that "I did this, and then this happened". That's close enough to the truth to call it that. It's available in not just Mathematics: Chemistry, Physics for example.

No. It's when someone else does "this" and reproduces the result only using your article, only then that's close to truth.

This study strikes me as promotional material with a science flavour. It helps foster the desire for fermented food, ie its a means to shift premium product off shelves. I fancy some kimchi or kefir myself, having read it!

Unfortunately, I think even serious studies have this flaw (of being beholden to funding). The person or group providing the funding need to get a return on their investment. Ie even those more serious studies are a form of conjecture, with only a subset of data being approached, or some important element being excluded.

> It helps foster the desire for fermented food, ie its a means to shift premium product off shelves.

Sorry but this sounds disingenuous to me. Isn't one of the hallmarks of fermented foods that you can prepare them at home, fairly cheaply in lots of cases? It is to me...

There are books, kits, jars, drinks, restaurants. And you can buy fermented foods in shops too.

Okay I understand what you mean now (still don't agree). I'm having a hard time envisioning companies involved in the fermented foods scene coming together and "lobbying" to push their "agenda" but who knows, maybe I'm being naive! ;-)

Imo, that's all there is. Money drives everything.

Are you suggesting the study was funded by an entity that sells fermented foods? The authors of the study stated there were no competing interests.

That is what is declared. But we really don't know who funds the studies, what conditions the money comes with, or will be withdrawn under, whether the conditions are even stated, etc.

However, I see:

> Hungry Heart Farm and Dietary Consulting, Conley, GA, USA

> Christi Hansen

Which doesn't sound like a university.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com