Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasallen | Hacker News Reader

I hate when these researchers don't stick to the rationally implied conclusions. "We see no correlation" is the rationally implied conclusion of the research. "Maybe it's affluence" is not science, at that point the researcher became just-some-guy(gal?) throwin' out his theories.

View on HN

It's common when writing a scientific paper to write opinions like that. "We showed there is no correlation. Possible explanations for past correlation may be..." It's not just some guy throwing theories against a wall to see what sticks. It's someone who has studied this exact topic for many months or years.

Exactly. Speculation from someone who is entrenched in the study of a subject is very valuable. Is it not speculation that leads to further investigation and eventually a scientific study? Educated guesses is just as much a part of science as doing an actual controlled study.

Yes, but then the news media steps in and claims that the gods of science have spoken. Then if this article gets refuted a year or two down the road, the damage is done because the public moved on.

So, fix the media. Don't whine about the scientists.

Pundit and research scientist are different roles, however. Yes, his punditry may be more informed than most other's, but the lines would be kept cleaner if the punditry didn't come out when formally addressing the research. It's a fine topic for future research, but until that future project comes, I'd rather see it kept separate from the formal project conclusions.

Yea, I see your point. I think I'm more annoyed by the title which greatly overstates the implications of the study.

I absolutely agree. I would also add that as scientists we have the ability to shape opinions because our statements tend to be taken as fact (whether or not we are speaking about our field of research). With this comes a responsibility to be honest and transparent, a responsibility which is shirked all too often. The idea that this study is somehow the end of the discussion and it is now "proven" that Omega-3 fats don't help curb memory loss is laughable.

It's called confirmation bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

That's really stretching the meaning. It's more like "guessing" than it is "confirmation bias."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com