View Single Post
  #9  
Old October 11th 11, 08:48 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running
Existential Angst[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 835
Default Another fear-mongering article on supplementation....

"MU" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:44:55 -0400, Doug Freese wrote:

I'll just say I'm leery of the large studies be it the Iowa female or
the
Bedsty nympho. There is so much stuff going on in those studies that to
determine if Massingill Rose hips or vinegar flavor makes things smell
better is mathematically bizarre much less believable. Roll stuff across
some thousands of people and drawing some conclusion about a single
change
or two, well, the check is in the mail. There are too few controls.


And no one on these newsgroups who have one iota of qualification to
assess them.


Well, actually, dats not quite true. Those that do have the quals just
don't wear them on their sleeves, such as an asshole like, well,
YOU/Courtney Brown would.... Or Andrew Chung....

But the little known fact is, most researchers *in that particular field*
would be hard-pressed to assess the research of others, and that assumes
*total honesty and transparency* of the study at hand. You basically have
to take the researchers' word for virtually *everything*, including the
data.

In many cases, the best you can do is catch them in "fundamental-type"
errors (such as mis-representation of the current knowledge base, incorrect
structures/mathematical formalisms, etc), internal inconsistencies, etc.

But if they haven't made any of those type errors, the study can be absolute
bull**** and you would never know.
Thus, with the least amount of academic disingenuousness (and that's being
polite), studies are VERY difficult to assess.

This is true even in pure mathematics, where I've read accounts of the
near-impossibility of valid peer review even in THAT "unfettered" field.
What an eye-opener DAT was....

In gradurate school, a required course is "literature review", where you
study, for a whole goddamm semester, just HOW to ferret out ALL the details
in a research article. Individuals are assigned an article, or even groups
of 2 or 3 are assigned an article, generally a "classic" or seminal/highly
cited paper, and do a full presentation on it.
You are then subjected to basically a class inquisition, incl the class
puhfessuh, of how well YOU understood the article, bearing in mind that the
whole class is required to read and dissect the article you are presenting.

You cannot IMAGINE the amount of work this takes. What a fukn
nightmare.....

So indeed, one could arger that almost NO ONE can fully assess these
articles, esp. when they are *fundamentally* bull****.

Think Cold Fusion, which even after the initial hub-bub, labs around the
country were """replicating""" their bull**** results.... WTF????

I may have posted this already, but it's always a gas, and very instructive,
to re-link it. Consider a well-known case in pure physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair for a general overview

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/ for a more critical analysis,
where not only do you learn that the Bogdanov Bros can't grok the classical
physics of the Foucalt pendulum/coriolis force, apparently a lot of their
PhD colleague supporters don't grok these elementary classical physics
concepts either!!
YET, they pontificate on String Theory, Unification Theory, and
BigBangBull****, ad nauseum.

Finally, how Assaholicness knows no bounds:
http://www.celebrityplasticsurgery.t...anoff-brothers

Again, this is *pure physics*, not some messy epidemiological/statistical
crappola.

So yeah, MU, it IS hard to assess these articles, which is why we are in our
current point'n'click oblivion, with many unlikely to be able to collect
their pensions.

Le Pubic is in deep ****.
--
EA