Message from @MOS MAIORVM (AKA Sola)
Discord ID: 311373344865910796
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
it's similar to sample size
Is it?
Another semi fallacy
All these things
how is that a semi fallacy?
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?
Look
I'm not saying a long study makes it valid
but a long study under the same given conditions is superior to a short study
By observing the overall quality of science in terms of measurable impact or real insight
And again I say