How to determine what research to believe?

[TommyGun]

I initially learned from Rip to be skeptical of claims made in the fitness industry, and that being skeptical of other's data, methodology, and conclusions pays big dividends. Then after spending alot, and I mean a lot of time getting into Nassim Taleb's work, I apply skepticism to all areas espicially the scientific and medical research. Many (most?) research is into closed systems performed in academic environments, and initially have very little broader application outside of the experiment sample size. That is not to say there is no value in such data or experiment, just that
when applied to larger populations with second order variables (such as the real world we live in) such conclusions and results are often not repeatable.

Healthy skepticism. (. ..drops the mic)

[Strega]

But then, in retirement, he went outside his field. He started researching mega vitamin doses -- specifically vitamin C -- as a cure-all.

I wonder what field is supposed to study mega vitamin dosages? When you state “outside their field” I’m thinking Economics dabbling in medcines. Bio-Chemistry is not such a stretch is it? I get where you are going however I don’t think Pauling should be the poster child for the argument. Given the timeframe, tools and techniques when he started down this was a quack or just someone that made a wrong turn on a complicated road. Objectively there are proven medical benefits to taking vitamin C, so has society judged Pauling on what he did or said or where a quack industry has taken it? In the larger scheme of things without the quacks that followed this would just be a footnote to his history.

[Pluripotent]

I wonder what field is supposed to study mega vitamin dosages? When you state “outside their field” I’m thinking Economics dabbling in medcines. Bio-Chemistry is not such a stretch is it? I get where you are going however I don’t think Pauling should be the poster child for the argument. Given the timeframe, tools and techniques when he started down this was a quack or just someone that made a wrong turn on a complicated road. Objectively there are proven medical benefits to taking vitamin C, so has society judged Pauling on what he did or said or where a quack industry has taken it? In the larger scheme of things without the quacks that followed this would just be a footnote to his history.

Society doesn't judge Pauling this way, generally. I do, though. I find that the vast majority of people are completely unaware of Pauling's later works. And virtually no one has heard of Rath, even though he is probably one of history's worst villains. This is the general type of response I get when I've brought up this idea about Pauling before. But I'm sticking to it. Pauling is clearly to blame. He wasn't "dabbling" in bio-chemistry, he completely left the reservation. He was searching for a cure-all in vitamin C. Yes, vitamin C is important, as are all the vitamins (which is why they are called vitamins). He didn't "just make a wrong turn," he was specifically studying mega-doses of vitamins as cure-alls, and -- typical for quack medicine -- he had his conclusions drawn largely before his research even began. And with his three Nobel prizes, he gave legitimacy to something that had none, which enabled Rath to have a much larger influence than he otherwise would. Probably without Pauling, Rath would not have been possible, so, yeah, he has blood on his hands.

[Matt Neilsen]

I agree with what you said, but IIRC Pauling didn't win three Nobels--and he did win the Peace Prize.

I thought Pluripotent's post nailed it on the head, and Brahms' observation makes it even better (Linus Pauling won 2 Nobel Prizes: Chemistry and Peace).

Just goes to show you what happens when Pluripotent steps outside his field of specialty (medicine) into history

I'm just giving you a hard time, Pluripotent. I really enjoyed your post, and the idea of healthy skepticism has been the most valuable thing I've learned being around this community. I've benefited tremendously from many of your past posts and you've often challenged many of my (heretofore unchallenged) beliefs.

All that to say: thanks for the great post.

[Pluripotent]

I thought Pluripotent's post nailed it on the head, and Brahms' observation makes it even better (Linus Pauling won 2 Nobel Prizes: Chemistry and Peace).

Just goes to show you what happens when Pluripotent steps outside his field of specialty (medicine) into history

I'm just giving you a hard time, Pluripotent. I really enjoyed your post, and the idea of healthy skepticism has been the most valuable thing I've learned being around this community. I've benefited tremendously from many of your past posts and you've often challenged many of my (heretofore unchallenged) beliefs.

All that to say: thanks for the great post.

I stand corrected. I had remembered him winning at least two science prizes. Probably should have looked that up before posting. The Peace prize really is silly, so I'm not even sure if it counts as a prize anymore. Thanks for the kind words. The point stands, regardless of how many prizes he won.