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?

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?

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

Not necessarily

Long enough is the best one can say

Long enough is subjective

To some degree yes