←back to thread

279 points petethomas | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
1. geor9e ◴[] No.45306687[source]
I wish there was anything we could do about "x may y" "studies" where it's just a grad student finding 2 weakly correlated variables in an existing dataset and hitting publish. Maybe experimental studies can be called science and observational studies can be called schmience. Of course that is a terrible solution, but god I wish something could be done.
replies(1): >>45306886 #
2. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45306886[source]
> where it's just a grad student

This study was "just a grad student"?

replies(1): >>45308786 #
3. geor9e ◴[] No.45308786[source]
This article is a pop sci editorial. But it's drawing a "may cause" causation from correlations found in "observational studies" rather than "experimental studies". Junior researchers, pressured to publish or die, shovel them out because it's the easiest thing to publish. No experiments, no scientific method, no controls. Just manipulate old data and cherry pick something that looks like it might be related to another thing. Then a year later we get the opposite headline, from another grad student looking for an easy paper to publish. Then the general public confuses it for science.
replies(1): >>45310207 #
4. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45310207{3}[source]
So…you’re spouting crap not relevant to this paper?