How to determine what research to believe?

[matt_217]

By actually reading the studies and thinking about them yourself. The data supporting the view that saturated fat causes heart disease has always been dubious, at least in my view...we know this because we can actually read the studies and examine the data ourselves.

Now do that with fluoride. Watch Sully's recent videos about how to read and dissect a scientific study. Find a study (not some guy's opinion on the John Birch Society webpage) that supposedly concludes that fluoride causes lower IQ or unspecified reproductive problems. Look at the data, the methodology, the conclusions, and the process the article had to go through before publication (for example, was it peer reviewed?). See if other studies by different groups have found similar conclusions (i.e., was the data reproducible?). Then do the same for studies that conclude the opposite.

FWIW, I think you'll find that an honest evaluation of the research suggesting that fluoride causes lower IQ are about the same level of rigor as those suggesting that vaccines cause autism. That is to say, not seriously believed by those who honestly evaluate the research.

Just postulating possible conspiracies or relying on your own government-is-tyrannical sensibilities to evaluate research conclusions is not particularly helpful. Industry-sponsored scientific studies can be very credible or very shitty. Likewise for scientific studies by independent or public organizations. Adherence to the scientific method is what determines the validity of a given study, not the scientists involved in it. Science is not flawed, scientists are.

Great response. Do you make an effort to avoid GMO food and do you make an effort to buy organic? I'm just curious.

Thanks,

Matt

[Mark Rippetoe]

How old are you, Matt? Just out of curiosity.

[maturin]

Taking a few classes in research methodology, and reading a bunch of studies, helped me understand scientific studies better: understanding the procedure, the method, terminology, and common pitfalls. Parsing science is a skill like any other, and I should practice it more often. We are showered in information daily and critical examination is valuable, and hard at times.

[Brodie Butland]

Great response. Do you make an effort to avoid GMO food and do you make an effort to buy organic? I'm just curious.

Thanks,

Matt

I don't think my opinion matters much. But since you're interested and asked, I think the discussion of GMOs is a bit silly because pretty much all food you buy...even that grown on family farms...is genetically modified. And for good reason--wild strawberries and peppers taste like shit, aren't very big, and can't be grown on a scale large enough to feed everyone. But even if we limit the discussion to genetic modifications that could not occur in nature even in theory, there simply isn't convincing scientific evidence that GMOs are inherently dangerous. There was a really interesting debate on Intelligence-Squared a while back about the safety of GMOs--two food company scientists versus two anti-GMO consumer advocates. The entire debate went like this:

Dude or Dudette from Monsanto: These aren't dangerous. There are 30 scientific studies that show no danger. Do you have any scientific study showing otherwise?

Anti-GMO Dude or Dudette: No. But you just don't KNOW that your latest product is safe because those studies were done on your earlier GMO products.

This is not, of course, the definitive position statement of either "side," but it's pretty revealing that in a debate between two sets of presumed experts, only one side brought a gun to the fight. So, basically, I don't care about the GMO thing. And as little as I care about it, I'm pretty sure that the millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa who have benefitted from not starving thanks to Monsanto's research care even less that they're eating GMOs. Perhaps this will ultimately shorten my life, but oh well...something's going to get me eventually, and it's far more likely to be something other than eating GMOs.

As for organic, in a vacuum I try to look for it in products where I eat the surface (generally produce), but I haven't taken out a second mortgage so I can shop at Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. For example, it makes zero sense for most people to purchase organic bananas because they don't eat the skin of the banana. (I'm admittedly a rarity here, because I grind up the whole banana in fruit mixes.)

[matt_217]

One thing that is crucial is considering each argument individually based on its merits, and try to avoid falling into logical fallacies based on your own beliefs. For example, in the quoted statement, you are starting with the assumption/opinion the government is "tyrannical" and implying you think it is actively involved in discreetly causing harm to the populace; ergo the argument seeming plausible. But to me is seems that this process involves an ad hominem fallacy and/or an inverted argument from authority (the government is "tyrannical" and therefor up to something duplicitous), and potentially confirmation bias. If you remove or lessen those assumptions, does the claim still seem valid based on your analysis?

It is not my opinion that the federal government has been growing and consuming more GDP, it is fact. Tyranny refers to controlling and exercising power in a cruel way. Is it not cruel to lower economic production for an entire country just to push ideology in this once free country? Is the the federal government that wants to regulate everything from the Internet to medicine to education not controlling?!

Lets take something simple such as property tax that is relatively new. If you don't pay your property taxes, you lose your land and home. If you refuse to leave you will be force to leave. If you defend yourself you will be shot if you don't succumb to the law. Whatever you want to believe it or not, you don't own your own land. You are merely renting it from the government. Is a government that doesn't recognize private property not tyrannical?


You are trying too hard to see intelligent in your post. Don't use words you don't understand, and do yourself a favor and read up a little on economics. Read supply side economics, not Keynesian theory bullshit.

[matt_217]

How old are you, Matt? Just out of curiosity.

I am 20 years old. You might think a question about GMO's or organic food is stupid, but I just recently have been living on my own, thus preparing my own meals. I was just curious what your personal buying habits at the grocery store were.

Just to clear things up, I never said that I believe that fluoride has negative side effects. I was just wondering what you personally think when determining whether or not you believe the research is accurate. I understand that you just think rationally about the nature of the research, and some types of research can easily be dismissed. I threw out the fluoride example because its the first one I thought of.

Perhaps a better way to word my question would be: "What are the questions you ask yourself when reading a new research article or paper". For the untrained mind it can be difficult to question the faults in the research if you don't know what to look for.

Everybody who has cancer is also an animal.

Why is that important? There are many who claim that animal products increase chances of certain cancers. Not to say that I believe them at all, but someone can be an animal and not consume animal products.

The only thing I can think of that could that could add some reassurance to the accuracy of the research is the organization or journal that publishes it.

Should I be more likely to believe medical research from Harvard medical school rather than some independent study published by some random journal?

It would be awesome to see you write more articles about flunky research genres like you did on T-nation about exercise science.

thanks,

Matt

[Mark Rippetoe]

I am 20 years old. You might think a question about GMO's or organic food is stupid, but I just recently have been living on my own, thus preparing my own meals. I was just curious what your personal buying habits at the grocery store were.

I buy the best quality non-organic produce I can find. Because I know the difference between "organic" and normal produce. You should read more about that.

Perhaps a better way to word my question would be: "What are the questions you ask yourself when reading a new research article or paper". For the untrained mind it can be difficult to question the faults in the research if you don't know what to look for.

Dr. Sullivan has excellent advice. Watch the video.

Why is that important? There are many who claim that animal products increase chances of certain cancers. Not to say that I believe them at all, but someone can be an animal and not consume animal products.

Are all claims worthy of refutation? Is an unsubstantiated implausible claim worth your time? There are many who claim that the earth is 6000 years old. There are still a few who claim that the earth is actually flat. Does it make the slightest amount of logical sense to you that animal products -- the things we have been eating for millions of years, (despite that fact that the earth is only 6000 years old) -- increase the chances of certain cancers? How much an increase? Read the studies after you watch Sully's videos.

[dmgetz]

It is not my opinion that the federal government has been growing and consuming more GDP, it is fact. Tyranny refers to controlling and exercising power in a cruel way. Is it not cruel to lower economic production for an entire country just to push ideology in this once free country? Is the the federal government that wants to regulate everything from the Internet to medicine to education not controlling?!

Lets take something simple such as property tax that is relatively new. If you don't pay your property taxes, you lose your land and home. If you refuse to leave you will be force to leave. If you defend yourself you will be shot if you don't succumb to the law. Whatever you want to believe it or not, you don't own your own land. You are merely renting it from the government. Is a government that doesn't recognize private property not tyrannical?

You are trying too hard to see intelligent in your post. Don't use words you don't understand, and do yourself a favor and read up a little on economics. Read supply side economics, not Keynesian theory bullshit.

My point was not to disagree with your politics, but your logic.

For what it's worth, you seem to be making some pretty significantly incorrect assumptions about my political and economic beliefs, as well as my familiarity with economics.

[kanahan]

Debunkatron

Not a bad place to start

[Pluripotent]

Just as a general rule, there is probably more "conventional wisdom" -- even if supported by "evidence" -- which is in desperate need of debunking than not. Even if this were not true, however, it is still probably better to approach any topic as though it were. You'll end up on a better place for it.