Slightly OT: Contradictory Studies

SCIENTISTS DO THE NUMBERS

"...critics say... far too many of these epidemiological studies -- in
which the habits and other factors of large populations of people are
tracked, sometimes for years -- are wrong and should be ignored..."

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...ck=7&cset=true

So what's your opinion ??

This post not CC'd by email
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:56:15 -0000, dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com>
wrote:

>SCIENTISTS DO THE NUMBERS

G'day G'day Dsolo,

"Scientists do the numbers" must be one of the more meaningless
statements I've heard today. The statement has some worthy competition
but is still clearly in the finals for being a winner.

>"...critics say...

Nameless critics. <Ahem>

When the numbers are done one can infer that two critics exist in the
imagination of writer.

>far too many of these epidemiological studies --

The emotive appeal is pretty obvious.

When does many become "far too many?" (The question is rhetorical)
One simply has to notice when emotive appeal replaces logic.

By now one should recognise a stack of meaningless statements stacked
on a stack of meaningless statements.

> in which the habits and other factors of large populations of people are
>tracked, sometimes for years -- are wrong and should be ignored..."

Those two critics in the mind of the writer are likely to reach such a
conclusion. How exactly can habits be wrong?

Notice what nonsense this is. Collecting data on habits is hardly
likely to be wrong. It is the sort of argument likely only to succeed
with people who do too much speed reading without pauses for thinking
and asking simple questions.

>So what's your opinion ??

Epidemiological studies are VITALLY IMPORTANT.
Ignoring them is idiotic.

Too often people draw far reaching conclusions based on carefully
controlled experiments. It seems like the logical thing to do.

The problem is people DON'T live carefully controlled lives. They do
what they do as part of a life style determined in part by cultural
constraints. Epidemiological studies help tie all this together.

How does a life style like Seventh Day Adventists improve one's health
chances? Most carefully controlled experiments look at one factor at
a time. A lifestyle embraces many, many factors simultaneously. Most
people when they want to give themselves a better chance of living
without complications do NOT change one factor. They change many
factors and many of them want to know what difference that will make.

How about a diet similar to that on the Greek Islands?

It is only when one looks at people living life the way they want to
live life, largely outside the gaze of controlling scientists that one
learns what is going to work in practice and what isn't.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

Thanks Quentin! Excellent as always : )

Dale

dsolo wrote:
> SCIENTISTS DO THE NUMBERS
>
> "...critics say... far too many of these epidemiological studies -- in
> which the habits and other factors of large populations of people are
> tracked, sometimes for years -- are wrong and should be ignored..."
>
> http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...ck=7&cset=true
>
> So what's your opinion ??
>
>
The infamous "Framingham Nurses Study" has long been considered an
example of worthless answers looking for a question,
It is a fact that if you take a large hodgepodge of semi-random data and
analyze e it, you will get correlations. The human mind tries to see
order in chaos, and, if it isn't there, creates it
..
\\
Nationalistically, mathematically challenged researchers still use it
(and a few smaller ones) as if they meant something..

Another similar problem is the common use of "Meta Studies" . "Metas"
should always be printed on very soft paper. preferably;ly in rolls
with perforations every few inches.

This post not CC'd by email
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:52:18 -0400, ted rosenberg
<tedrosenberg@iname.com> wrote:

>Another similar problem is the common use of "Meta Studies" . "Metas"
>should always be printed on very soft paper. preferably;ly in rolls
>with perforations every few inches.

G'day G'day Ted,

You're developing quite a sense of humour there.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

dsolo wrote:
> SCIENTISTS DO THE NUMBERS
>
> "...critics say... far too many of these epidemiological studies -- in
> which the habits and other factors of large populations of people are
> tracked, sometimes for years -- are wrong and should be ignored..."
>
> http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...ck=7&cset=true
>
> So what's your opinion ??
>
Without going to the website (did not want to log in): There should be a
large number of people, however, a study that continues over time(years)
is apt to become warped, also the variables are apt to change, thereby
skewing the results.
Lorna