People cite paper titles like they are facts. Nobody even knows whether or not it was an epidemiology study or an interventional study, they just say “they did a study showing that underwater basket weaving lowers your risk for colon cancer!” Nobody actually reads the studies.
During a debate or conversation, many people cite studies in support of their point of view. This is a problem because now the other person is swamped with a dozen studies to analyze and debunk before proving he’s right. And academia is producing huge volumes of these bullshit studies so no matter how you slice it, a huge unnecessary burden has been created of digging through all of them and circling the flaws.
Thankfully, there is an emerging cultural mechanism to deal with this in the growing “epidemiology is bullshit” sentiment. This is good because it reduces the bulk of bullshit that will ultimately need to be processed and debunked. If the study is epidemiology just cross it out by default. Those studies need to burn in hell. Shine the light of day on them and brandish the holy crucifix whenever you see one.
The only thing worse than a science denier is a person who blindly parrots study titles without ever reading the body of the paper let alone understand it. People complain endlessly about armchair scientists who are spreading misinformation based on their uneducated assessment of scientific data. And the people who complain about this are always the same people who cite studies that they don’t understand like complete idiots, spreading misinformation just as widely.
> there is an emerging cultural mechanism to deal with this in the growing “epidemiology is bullshit” sentiment
There is an emerging cultural mechanism - more a rampaging mob - that says 'X is bullshit' as a simple way of denying facts or issues that are inconvenient or difficult. It's used for the news media, academia, non-partisan government agencies (e.g., the CDC), etc., etc. and for everyone who disagrees.
I say this social mechanism is bullshit - the sources they disregard come with plenty of evidence, saying they are bullshit comes with none - it's just easy to say.
It's also very destructive. Where do we get our epidemiology or news or whatever else if anyone can claim anything is bullshit at any time, halting everything until they are proven wrong? It's up to them to prove their claim right; we can't all halt and freeze in place every time someone makes the minimal effort to vocalize, 'X is bullshit'. Without evidence, their claim is meaningless and should be ignored.
Epidemiology, the imperfect human institution it is, provides many successes.
If it isn’t a randomized interventional study, and apparently now even those are subject to fraud, it doesn’t prove anything. They shouldn’t be discussed except in cases where a real study is impossible (global warming) or when trying to reason about which hypothesis should be tested next. It’s definitely a vein of ripe shit in our society, the misuse of epidemiology.
Epidemiology is precisely one of those cases were very often a randomized control trial isn't feasible (or even ethical to begin with). Your argument is self-defeating.
That's why countless time has been spent refining the techniques and methods used to make and understand those studies, and why the vast majority of experts balance different kind of studies while making decisions, not just RCTs.
During a debate or conversation, many people cite studies in support of their point of view. This is a problem because now the other person is swamped with a dozen studies to analyze and debunk before proving he’s right. And academia is producing huge volumes of these bullshit studies so no matter how you slice it, a huge unnecessary burden has been created of digging through all of them and circling the flaws.
Thankfully, there is an emerging cultural mechanism to deal with this in the growing “epidemiology is bullshit” sentiment. This is good because it reduces the bulk of bullshit that will ultimately need to be processed and debunked. If the study is epidemiology just cross it out by default. Those studies need to burn in hell. Shine the light of day on them and brandish the holy crucifix whenever you see one.
The only thing worse than a science denier is a person who blindly parrots study titles without ever reading the body of the paper let alone understand it. People complain endlessly about armchair scientists who are spreading misinformation based on their uneducated assessment of scientific data. And the people who complain about this are always the same people who cite studies that they don’t understand like complete idiots, spreading misinformation just as widely.