Message from @MOS MAIORVM (AKA Sola)
Discord ID: 311373154922790922
What I linked was to show capitulation
People have been fooled that rigourous studies are able to tell us the truth
A lot of similar claims require the evidence of decades minimum, consistently visible
Most studies in medicine esp are just trash
The best work was done earlier last century and little of it was based on studies
a lot of it is poor diet. good diets eating cheese
it's hard to just say CHEESE IS BAD
Cheese radiates goodness
Tried and tested principles always beat studies
This sickness in science extends beyond medicine
The last real breakthroughs in physics must have been like 1920
Or earlier
@fallot it was a 10 year study as I said
That's quite a long time
there may be more factors to it unaccounted for but the premise is definitely eye opening
If you study something that could take 10 years to show its effect you need to study it for much longer than that. Thank you for making me aware of it at least.
I'm open to the idea, though I'd of course like to see more research
Be careful with that
2 years ago I would have said similarly
I think the point was that a 10 year study is far more reliable than a 1 year study
Is it?
Another semi fallacy
All these things
how is that a semi fallacy?
Are you proposing that a 2 week study is as reliable as a 10 year study under the same conditions?
Because ultimately the validity does not depend on how big or blind your study is
I find that doubtful
Hence semi
That's not true at all
Re what you said
It is trivially true
Its validity depends on your priors
The mechanics of what you study
I'm not debating the validity of whether cheese causes cancer
Sure. I mean in general too.
I'm debating the validity of the results of any given study based on length and size
It is well established that such factors are important
Part of the scientific method if I recall properly
Not as important as your average person considers them
And how to do you come to that conclusion or measure such a thing?