New Scientist is a pretty well respected magazine which popularizes science.
I think most here know or suspect that "Diet Science" is almost a lying
prideful competitive mess.... including the conflict of interest
internal to the USDA who both promote the growth and use of carbohydrate
crosp as well as claiming to "establish a healthy diet for Americans".
The first two paragraphs are:
-----------------------------------------------
Most scientific papers are probably wrong
* 02:00 30 August 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kurt Kleiner
Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new
analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with
experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50%
chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School
of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design,
researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to
make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies
are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be
wary of reported findings.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915
BJ in Texas - 30 Aug 2005 18:18 GMT
|| New Scientist is a pretty well respected magazine which
|| popularizes science.
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
|| ----------------------------------------------------------
|| http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915
Pretty much fits may experience. It also explains the many
contradictory studies that we see.
BJ

Signature
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -- Unknown
jbuch - 30 Aug 2005 23:04 GMT
> || New Scientist is a pretty well respected magazine which
> || popularizes science.
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> BJ
There may be types of scientific studies somewhat immune from this
criticism.
Much of what was said in the article appears to relate to "Survey" type
things where out of a mass of questions, one searches for statistical
correlations.......
And pretends that the statistical correlations found are a root
explanation of something.
DUMB
Town with more fire enfines have more fires, so therefore fire engines
cause fires......
BETTER
*Bigger towns have more people and people cause fires so bigger towns
will have more fires.
*Bigger town will have more people and buy more fire engines because
ther are more fires from more people, and more area to cover because of
more people.
BJ - 31 Aug 2005 00:21 GMT
> There may be types of scientific studies somewhat immune from this
> criticism.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> are more fires from more people, and more area to cover because of more
> people.
It applys to most studies that analyze data looking for correlations.
Correlations
are hard to relate to cause and effect. It also applys to studies conducted
with
small groups because they are not statistically diverse enough. You should
also
be careful of studies that are conducted or funded by and organization that
has
a stake in the results.
BJ
Cubit - 30 Aug 2005 18:21 GMT
OK
I'll buy that.
> New Scientist is a pretty well respected magazine which popularizes science.
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915