Science is not what it used to be

[Stetson]

My question is actually very simple and far from metaphysical. It also has a simple mathematical solution.

I'm just making a point about your idea of "valid assumption". Sounds to me "valid" = "makes sense" but how do you know something makes sense until you actually show that it does?

It just is. Why is it? Because its valid. Why is it valid? Because it is. etc. etc.

[lamminium]

It just is. Why is it? Because its valid. Why is it valid? Because it is. etc. etc.

He knows he can't say that because:

- I stated that there was a proof.

- That's clearly circular reasoning. He'd lose all credibility if he went down that road.

- Reminds me of Mazhar, whom petrossa knows too well I put on ignore mode whenever he starts using circular logic.

[elantheros]

Moral of the story: flaunting how scientifically illiterate you are is not cool, it's silly.

"Proving valid ideas" has to be one of the more absurd misrepresentations of the scientific process I've heard. It implies that one already knows an idea is valid BEFORE the investigation, and, even worse, the investigation is geared towards proving that assumption.

Are you sure you paid attention during science class in high school, petrossa?

[petrossa]

Ok so now that you all have had your fun sidetracking my OP.

Let's reiterate:

I adhere to this definition of science:

science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study

So science isn't:

Making preposterous claims and than use doubtful methods to 'prove' them right.

In the case cited in the OP:

Science and society

?IQ explains some of the difference in heart disease between people of high and low socio-economic status

A unique study looking at the difference in cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) and life expectancy between people of high and low socio-economic status has found that a person?s IQ may have a role to play.

Authors of the study published in Europe?s leading cardiology journal, the European Heart Journal [1] today (Wednesday 15 July), analysed data from a group of 4,289 former soldiers in the USA. They found that IQ explained more than 20% of the difference in mortality between people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds compared to those from more advantaged backgrounds. Importantly, this was in addition to the classical, known risk factors for heart disease, such as smoking and obesity.

Someone was looking for premature mortality markers. Without any form of valid scientific research they claim that stupid people die sooner because they are stupid.?

Furthermore they repeat bland claims which are proven to be false about obesity and CVD. CVD is LESS prevalent amongst the obese I and the overweight (the majority of people) Our results are similar to those from other recent studies, confirming that underweight and obesity class II+ are clear risk factors for mortality, and showing that when compared to the acceptable BMI category, overweight appears to be protective against mortality. Obesity class I was not associated with an increased risk of mortality.

The whole study: http://www.nature.co...by2009191a.html

So their whole paper shows they're nowhere near reality.

Now let me explain what would be PROPER science:

Given that poor people die more often of CVD than rich people one goes to look for the most logical reason first (occam's razor)

a) They don't have the money for proper nourishment, resulting in malnutrition of essential vitamins and minerals.

b) They usually are stuck with jobs of lesser quality, exposing them more to toxic substances/hard labor straining the heart.

What would be improper science:

Since most poor people are poor because they lack the mental skills to be not poor, people with lesser mental skills would expected to be overrepresented in those groups. And therefore show up more in the statistics.?

Having seen this tenuous link you jump to conclusions and and claim: you see , stupid people die sooner.

NonScience.

Another case:

A person looks for reasons why whole wheat eaters seems to suffer less from diabetes. Obviously one doesn't follow the proper scientific way and put a group on whole wheat only, another without whole wheat and a third with a mix, because that would be scientific .

No, one does a selfreported crosspopulation analysis and by pure coincidence finds less diabetes in the whole wheat eating group.

Ofcourse one doesn't even begin to consider that people eating whole wheat are already bitten by the healthfood craze and tend to eat less crappy food. No, one poses a:?

Priebe found indications that short chain fatty acids could be responsible for the favourable effects of whole grain products. These substances are created in the large intestine when indigestible carbohydrates from unrefined grains are converted. Priebe: ?It?s important that we now search for what exactly explains the favourable effects of whole grain products. Once we know that, nutritional products without whole grains can be adapted to help prevent diabetes. And that could make an important contribution to stemming the tide of the disease.?

So Priebe tells us that: indigestible plantmaterial get disgested anyway and produces an unknown active ingredient by a hitherto unknown way and they are responsible for lesser diabetes.

Translated in english:

I haven't got a clue why whole wheat eaters would suffer less from diabetes, i didn't do any test singling out whole wheat as a cause but nonetheless i conclude it's a fact anyway and now i need a large grant to prove it.

I have 100's of those kinds of preposterous examples.

My most famous one the Obesity/Premature Death linkage: https://www.neowin.net/forum/blog/316/entry-3088-petrossas-blog/

[petrossa]

Moral of the story: flaunting how scientifically illiterate you are is not cool, it's silly.

"Proving valid ideas" has to be one of the more absurd misrepresentations of the scientific process I've heard. It implies that one already knows an idea is valid BEFORE the investigation, and, even worse, the investigation is geared towards proving that assumption.

Are you sure you paid attention during science class in high school, petrossa?

And yet again a personal attack. If you really have this overwhelming urge to prove how smart you are do it by being smart.?

[elantheros]

Someone was looking for premature mortality markers. Without any form of valid scientific research they claim that stupid people die sooner because they are stupid.

You STILL don't get it.

Please... go back and read post #83.

[elantheros]

And yet again a personal attack. If you really have this overwhelming urge to prove how smart you are do it by being smart.?

Wasn't trying to. When someone is as wrong as you are, you don't really need to be Einstein to notice it...

[petrossa]

Wasn't trying to. When someone is as wrong as you are, you don't really need to be Einstein to notice it...

Sigh. Well since this seems to turn into a religious debate, and since religion is not my thing i'll stick with the facts if you don't mind. Not your interpretation of the facts.

Experience taught me when people have nothing of consequence to say they try to discredit the messenger. Looking over this thread i see 90% personal attacks, varying from: You don't understand (implying that the writer does understand so is much smarter), via smug mocking (if you can't argue the case ridicule the messenger) to outright personal insult.

Rather childish way to 'win' an argument. Even more so since this isn't a contest. It's supposed to be a discussion.

So i'll reiterate:

I adhere to this definition of science:

science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study

So science isn't:

Making preposterous claims and than use doubtful methods to 'prove' them right.

In the case cited in the OP:

Science and society

IQ explains some of the difference in heart disease between people of high and low socio-economic status

A unique study looking at the difference in cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) and life expectancy between people of high and low socio-economic status has found that a person?s IQ may have a role to play.

Authors of the study published in Europe?s leading cardiology journal, the European Heart Journal [1] today (Wednesday 15 July), analysed data from a group of 4,289 former soldiers in the USA. They found that IQ explained more than 20% of the difference in mortality between people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds compared to those from more advantaged backgrounds. Importantly, this was in addition to the classical, known risk factors for heart disease, such as smoking and obesity.

Someone was looking for premature mortality markers. Without any form of valid scientific research they claim that stupid people die sooner because they are stupid.

Furthermore they repeat bland claims which are proven to be false about obesity and CVD. CVD is LESS prevalent amongst the obese I and the overweight (the majority of people) Our results are similar to those from other recent studies, confirming that underweight and obesity class II+ are clear risk factors for mortality, and showing that when compared to the acceptable BMI category, overweight appears to be protective against mortality. Obesity class I was not associated with an increased risk of mortality.

The whole study: http://www.nature.co...by2009191a.html

So their whole paper shows they're nowhere near reality.

Now let me explain what would be PROPER science:

Given that poor people die more often of CVD than rich people one goes to look for the most logical reason first (occam's razor)

a) They don't have the money for proper nourishment, resulting in malnutrition of essential vitamins and minerals.

b) They usually are stuck with jobs of lesser quality, exposing them more to toxic substances/hard labor straining the heart.

What would be improper science:

Since most poor people are poor because they lack the mental skills to be not poor, people with lesser mental skills would expected to be overrepresented in those groups. And therefore show up more in the statistics.

Having seen this tenuous link you jump to conclusions and and claim: you see , stupid people die sooner.

NonScience.

Another case:

A person looks for reasons why whole wheat eaters seems to suffer less from diabetes. Obviously one doesn't follow the proper scientific way and put a group on whole wheat only, another without whole wheat and a third with a mix, because that would be scientific .

No, one does a selfreported crosspopulation analysis and by pure coincidence finds less diabetes in the whole wheat eating group.

Ofcourse one doesn't even begin to consider that people eating whole wheat are already bitten by the healthfood craze and tend to eat less crappy food. No, one poses a:

Priebe found indications that short chain fatty acids could be responsible for the favourable effects of whole grain products. These substances are created in the large intestine when indigestible carbohydrates from unrefined grains are converted. Priebe: ?It?s important that we now search for what exactly explains the favourable effects of whole grain products. Once we know that, nutritional products without whole grains can be adapted to help prevent diabetes. And that could make an important contribution to stemming the tide of the disease.?

So Priebe tells us that: indigestible plantmaterial get disgested anyway and produces an unknown active ingredient by a hitherto unknown way and they are responsible for lesser diabetes.

Translated in english:

I haven't got a clue why whole wheat eaters would suffer less from diabetes, i didn't do any test singling out whole wheat as a cause but nonetheless i conclude it's a fact anyway and now i need a large grant to prove it.

I have 100's of those kinds of preposterous examples.

My most famous one the Obesity/Premature Death linkage: http://www.neowin.ne...petrossas-blog/

[PreKe]

Ok so now that you all have had your fun sidetracking my OP.

I actually think the fact that you don't know what science is and how it works is extremely relevant to the thread. After all, you seem to have started the thread because you didn't know much about science, so you jumped to conclusions.

So science isn't:

Making preposterous claims and than use doubtful methods to 'prove' them right.

No, it's about forming a hypothesis and testing it. But since you clearly do not understand the scientific method, your claims about "doubtful methods" aren't exactly convincing.

Now let me explain what would be PROPER science:

Now you are misunderstanding science again. Both your hypothesis, and the one you quotes as a crappy hypothesis, are valid hypotheses. The science is about testing these to see which one holds up.

Translated in english:

You don't even understand basic scientific terminology. What makes you think you can translate anything?

[lamminium]

Relativity was deemed "nonsensible" when it was proposed. According to petrossa's "valid assumption", it would have been dead in the coffin.

Quantum mechanics clashed strongly with the classical picture of matter. According to petrossa's way, physics would still be about just Newton and Maxwell.

When H. pyloric was nominated to be the cause of gastric ulcer, people thought the author was delirious because the everyone thought stress was the cause.

So TrueMonolith summarised the modern scientific approach quite well: the burden of proof rests on the authors and the popularity of the conclusion only increases with further verification. Science is a self-validating process.

As for the studies quoted, petrossa, you misquoted their conclusions:

- The article in the OP: IQ accounted for 20% of CVD mortality because of the social factors relating IQ to mortality. If anything, you should have stated that it's obvious instead of wrong. You make it sound like IQ biologically leads to CVD while the study stated IQ sociologically does (and it's only 20% accountability, not 110%). The main subject targets were socio-economic.

- The study about fat: Refer to other posters' explanations.

- The study about wheat and diabetes: just because you don't know how it works doesn't mean it can't happen. If the author happens to be wrong, the future studies will be the judge via conclusive means, not conjecture that "wheat is indigestible so it can't happen".

Overall, as long as there is some biochemical or social linkages that can account or potentially account for the observations, there is no reason to reject them (your reasoning thus far is like argument from ignorance: since there's nothing to explain this yet, that must be true). That's the whole idea. Your view of "proper science" is at odds with what real science is.

An absurd study would be like this: The decreasing number of pirates leads to the increasing temperature over the years. A correlation will surely be found but no one will step up and say one causes the other because there's no tangible mechanism for it. All of what you've been ranting about did bring up certain mechanisms that could happen.

The fact that you refuse to answer my question didn't really help me see your point of view (I assumed that it could have been genuine so I decided to pose further questions).

Sometimes it doesn't hurt to admit wrong where it is warranted. I do it all the times. You just can't.

Peace.

[petrossa]

Relativity was deemed "nonsensible" when it was proposed. According to petrossa's "valid assumption", it would have been dead in the coffin.

Next time try to respond to something i actually said, makes your arguments more valid.

?As explained in my language there's a distinct difference between a valid hypothesis and a not so. Going on about it makes you look petty, smug and full of yourself

Peace.

So to reiterate:

I adhere to this definition of science:

science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study

So science isn't:

Making preposterous claims and than use doubtful methods to 'prove' them right.

In the case cited in the OP:

Science and society

IQ explains some of the difference in heart disease between people of high and low socio-economic status

A unique study looking at the difference in cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) and life expectancy between people of high and low socio-economic status has found that a person?s IQ may have a role to play.

Authors of the study published in Europe?s leading cardiology journal, the European Heart Journal [1] today (Wednesday 15 July), analysed data from a group of 4,289 former soldiers in the USA. They found that IQ explained more than 20% of the difference in mortality between people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds compared to those from more advantaged backgrounds. Importantly, this was in addition to the classical, known risk factors for heart disease, such as smoking and obesity.

Someone was looking for premature mortality markers. Without any form of valid scientific research they claim that stupid people die sooner because they are stupid.

Furthermore they repeat bland claims which are proven to be false about obesity and CVD. CVD is LESS prevalent amongst the obese I and the overweight (the majority of people) Our results are similar to those from other recent studies, confirming that underweight and obesity class II+ are clear risk factors for mortality, and showing that when compared to the acceptable BMI category, overweight appears to be protective against mortality. Obesity class I was not associated with an increased risk of mortality.

The whole study: http://www.nature.co...by2009191a.html

So their whole paper shows they're nowhere near reality.

Now let me explain what would be PROPER science:

Given that poor people die more often of CVD than rich people one goes to look for the most logical reason first (occam's razor)

a) They don't have the money for proper nourishment, resulting in malnutrition of essential vitamins and minerals.

b) They usually are stuck with jobs of lesser quality, exposing them more to toxic substances/hard labor straining the heart.

What would be improper science:

Since most poor people are poor because they lack the mental skills to be not poor, people with lesser mental skills would expected to be overrepresented in those groups. And therefore show up more in the statistics.

Having seen this tenuous link you jump to conclusions and and claim: you see , stupid people die sooner.

NonScience.

Another case:

A person looks for reasons why whole wheat eaters seems to suffer less from diabetes. Obviously one doesn't follow the proper scientific way and put a group on whole wheat only, another without whole wheat and a third with a mix, because that would be scientific .

No, one does a selfreported crosspopulation analysis and by pure coincidence finds less diabetes in the whole wheat eating group.

Ofcourse one doesn't even begin to consider that people eating whole wheat are already bitten by the healthfood craze and tend to eat less crappy food. No, one poses a:

Priebe found indications that short chain fatty acids could be responsible for the favourable effects of whole grain products. These substances are created in the large intestine when indigestible carbohydrates from unrefined grains are converted. Priebe: ?It?s important that we now search for what exactly explains the favourable effects of whole grain products. Once we know that, nutritional products without whole grains can be adapted to help prevent diabetes. And that could make an important contribution to stemming the tide of the disease.?

So Priebe tells us that: indigestible plantmaterial get disgested anyway and produces an unknown active ingredient by a hitherto unknown way and they are responsible for lesser diabetes.

Translated in english:

I haven't got a clue why whole wheat eaters would suffer less from diabetes, i didn't do any test singling out whole wheat as a cause but nonetheless i conclude it's a fact anyway and now i need a large grant to prove it.

I have 100's of those kinds of preposterous examples.

My most famous one the Obesity/Premature Death linkage: http://www.neowin.ne...petrossas-blog/

[lamminium]

Next time try to respond to something i actually said, makes your arguments more valid.

As explained in my language there's a distinct difference between a valid hypothesis and a not so. Going on about it makes you look petty, smug and full of yourself

Peace.

You said, "valid".

I asked what "valid" meant. You never answered.

Before relativity was accepted, people would think it was nonsense. As someone from that era, what would you say?

"Test it anyway because Einstein does suggest proofs of his claim"

or

"What a preposterous claim! Why bother? Time is the same for everyone, no matter which frame the observer is in!"

Now think about what we're discussing.

Same thing.

[TrueMonolith]

You know petrossa...saying "no" and then repeating your own post...is pretty much part of the (uggg i may be beating a well run horse here) gish gallop.

You seem to have a lack of understanding about how the scientific method works (which is why i transposed the actual method against what you were saying).

[petrossa]

You said, "valid".

I asked what "valid" meant. You never answered.

Before relativity was accepted, people would think it was nonsense. As someone from that era, what would you say?

"Test it anyway because Einstein does suggest proofs of his claim"

or

"What a preposterous claim! Why bother? Time is the same for everyone, no matter which frame the observer is in!"

Now think about what we're discussing.

Same thing.

Dear Lam i am discussing my OP and it's consequences. You are nitpicking on some lost in translation detail of a detail of a detail of a phrase.

So to reiterate this is what i am discussing, if you want to play infantile wordgames to score points count me out.

I adhere to this definition of science:

science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study

So science isn't:

Making preposterous claims and than use doubtful methods to 'prove' them right.

In the case cited in the OP:

Science and society

IQ explains some of the difference in heart disease between people of high and low socio-economic status

A unique study looking at the difference in cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) and life expectancy between people of high and low socio-economic status has found that a person?s IQ may have a role to play.

Authors of the study published in Europe?s leading cardiology journal, the European Heart Journal [1] today (Wednesday 15 July), analysed data from a group of 4,289 former soldiers in the USA. They found that IQ explained more than 20% of the difference in mortality between people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds compared to those from more advantaged backgrounds. Importantly, this was in addition to the classical, known risk factors for heart disease, such as smoking and obesity.

Someone was looking for premature mortality markers. Without any form of valid scientific research they claim that stupid people die sooner because they are stupid.

Furthermore they repeat bland claims which are proven to be false about obesity and CVD. CVD is LESS prevalent amongst the obese I and the overweight (the majority of people) Our results are similar to those from other recent studies, confirming that underweight and obesity class II+ are clear risk factors for mortality, and showing that when compared to the acceptable BMI category, overweight appears to be protective against mortality. Obesity class I was not associated with an increased risk of mortality.

The whole study: http://www.nature.co...by2009191a.html

So their whole paper shows they're nowhere near reality.

Now let me explain what would be PROPER science:

Given that poor people die more often of CVD than rich people one goes to look for the most logical reason first (occam's razor)

a) They don't have the money for proper nourishment, resulting in malnutrition of essential vitamins and minerals.

b) They usually are stuck with jobs of lesser quality, exposing them more to toxic substances/hard labor straining the heart.

What would be improper science:

Since most poor people are poor because they lack the mental skills to be not poor, people with lesser mental skills would expected to be overrepresented in those groups. And therefore show up more in the statistics.

Having seen this tenuous link you jump to conclusions and and claim: you see , stupid people die sooner.

NonScience.

Another case:

A person looks for reasons why whole wheat eaters seems to suffer less from diabetes. Obviously one doesn't follow the proper scientific way and put a group on whole wheat only, another without whole wheat and a third with a mix, because that would be scientific .

No, one does a selfreported crosspopulation analysis and by pure coincidence finds less diabetes in the whole wheat eating group.

Ofcourse one doesn't even begin to consider that people eating whole wheat are already bitten by the healthfood craze and tend to eat less crappy food. No, one poses a:

Priebe found indications that short chain fatty acids could be responsible for the favourable effects of whole grain products. These substances are created in the large intestine when indigestible carbohydrates from unrefined grains are converted. Priebe: ?It?s important that we now search for what exactly explains the favourable effects of whole grain products. Once we know that, nutritional products without whole grains can be adapted to help prevent diabetes. And that could make an important contribution to stemming the tide of the disease.?

So Priebe tells us that: indigestible plantmaterial get disgested anyway and produces an unknown active ingredient by a hitherto unknown way and they are responsible for lesser diabetes.

Translated in english:

I haven't got a clue why whole wheat eaters would suffer less from diabetes, i didn't do any test singling out whole wheat as a cause but nonetheless i conclude it's a fact anyway and now i need a large grant to prove it.

I have 100's of those kinds of preposterous examples.

My most famous one the Obesity/Premature Death linkage: http://www.neowin.ne...petrossas-blog/

[lamminium]

^ Stop quoting the wall of text. You can simply reference it.

I am not nitpicking on what you said, I clearly stated that the studies you chose don't support what you've been saying (2 posts ago).

Here's a challenge: pick a truly preposterous study (as in something along the line of my example) and show us that it leads to negative consequences (according to my criterion, the obesity paradox is hardly a good example).

[Stetson]

So science isn't:

Making preposterous claims and than use doubtful methods to 'prove' them right.

These are two issues. I think most people here are arguing with you about the first part of this statement.

In my opinion:

Making a "preposterous" hypothesis (a hypothesis is not a claim, maybe that's where the confusion lies?) and then using the scientific method and proper statistical analysis and coming to the conclusion that your hypothesis was incorrect is science.

Making a logical hypothesis that most people would not see as "preposterous" and then using "doubtful methods to prove them right" wouldn't be science.

The important point here is the last two parts. The Scientific Method and statistical analysis.

I would also like to bring up once again the very distinct difference between correlation and causation. If you properly collect and analyze information based on proper statistical methods with a large and varied sample and you discover that on average lower IQ people die sooner, then saying that on average "stupid people die sooner" is fine. Claiming that they die sooner because they are stupid is another matter, once again correlation vs causation.

[petrossa]

^ Stop quoting the wall of text. You can simply reference it.

I am not nitpicking on what you said, I clearly stated that the studies you chose don't support what you've been saying (2 posts ago).

Here's a challenge: pick a truly preposterous study (as in something along the line of my example) and show us that it leads to negative consequences (according to my criterion, the obesity paradox is hardly a good example).

First of all: wtf should i adhere to your criteria? Or that of the the streetsweeper. They've both the same value.

The obesity paradox is a perfect example.

BMI and Mortality: Results From a National Longitudinal Study of Canadian Adults

Received 17 December 2008; Accepted 11 May 2009; Published online 18 June 2009.

Abstract

Although a clear risk of mortality is associated with obesity, the risk of mortality associated with overweight is equivocal. The objective of this study is to estimate the relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults. A sample of 11,326 respondents aged ≥25 in the 1994/1995 National Population Health Survey (Canada) was studied using Cox proportional hazards models. A significant increased risk of mortality over the 12 years of follow-up was observed for underweight (BMI <18.5; relative risk (RR) = 1.73, P < 0.001) and obesity class II+ (BMI >35; RR = 1.36, P <0.05). Overweight (BMI 25 to <30) was associated with a significantly decreased risk of death (RR = 0.83, P < 0.05). The RR was close to one for obesity class I (BMI 30?35; RR = 0.95, P >0.05). Our results are similar to those from other recent studies, confirming that underweight and obesity class II+ are clear risk factors for mortality, and showing that when compared to the acceptable BMI category, overweight appears to be protective against mortality. Obesity class I was not associated with an increased risk of mortality.

The whole study: http://www.nature.co...by2009191a.html

I guess that's why you want it excluded.

Your (and the other geniuses kind enough to spout their venom here) kind of science is childrens science. It's that what you've learned at school, nary an original thought passes through the net of preconceived, rehashed idea's written down by others you've taken for gospel and is now your yardstick.

Smug, snide ad homini fall part to those daring to question your dogma's learned by rote.

As i said before, the whole system of climategate is now completely clear to me how it could come about.

You take a ******** of mediocre 'scientists' and let them oldboys network themselves into a frenzy.

This whole thread should serve as a model how to filter out deskjockey's from scientists. The higher the level snide sarcasm without discussing to issue posed the worse of a scientist it is.

I should patent it.

[TrueMonolith]

Your (and the other geniuses kind enough to spout their venom here) kind of science is childrens science. It's that what you've learned at school, nary an original thought passes through the net of preconceived, rehashed idea's written down by others you've taken for gospel and is now your yardstick.

Smug, snide ad homini fall part to those daring to question your dogma's learned by rote.

As i said before, the whole system of climategate is now completely clear to me how it could come about.

You take a ******** of mediocre 'scientists' and let them oldboys network themselves into a frenzy.

This whole thread should serve as a model how to filter out deskjockey's from scientists. The higher the level snide sarcasm without discussing to issue posed the worse of a scientist it is.

I should patent it.

You realize of course, you're the one suggesting an "old boys network" to dictate what "valid assumptions" are.

Infact, you are the very dogmatic individual you're accusing other people of being. If it doesn't jive under your definition of "valid assumption" its not science and should be dismissed (according to your own words).

I gotta admit Petrossa, you're literally sounding like Ben Stein right now.

[PreKe]

The obesity paradox is a perfect example.

I already explained how BMI isn't completely useless, but can actually be used for statistical analyses of whole populations. But hey, who cares about facts if one can find something to attack science with?

Statement 1:

Your (and the other geniuses kind enough to spout their venom here) kind of science is childrens science. It's that what you've learned at school, nary an original thought passes through the net of preconceived, rehashed idea's written down by others you've taken for gospel and is now your yardstick.

Statement 2:

Smug, snide ad homini fall part to those daring to question your dogma's learned by rote.

Hypocrisy, much?

[elantheros]

You know, petrossa, it doesn't really hurt to admit you're wrong when you so obviously are.

It's not the grave insult to your pride that you seem to think it is, nor is there any reason to scream nonsense at people who're actually doing you a favor by correcting your misguided assumptions on something that will more likely than not prove useful to you later in life.

Why not just be a man, and confess that you stand corrected? It's not a courtroom, you don't get slapped with penalties if you "lose".

[lamminium]

First of all: wtf should i adhere to your criteria?

Because that's why people research. Sometimes I wonder if you understand why people committed themselves to research in the first place.

It's not a job that pays as well as the others in the same discipline like medical practitioners. People research to deliver something beneficial to the community and they do it because they love their job. If everyone's just like you, what motivation is there for the young research hopefuls to continue? There are no true mediocre minds in research. Certainly there are a few rotten examples but when you say "research", you're referring to thousands of people in hundreds of disciplines.

On topic: the obesity paradox says: obese patients paradoxically produce factors that counter CVD, as the data suggest. However, this has led to no negative consequences:

- It does not encourage obesity adoption.

- It does not state that obesity is a good option to avoid CVD.

The fact remains that obesity has various implications that have not yet been brought to light. The social factors alone warn people not to go down the road of obesity.

You know, petrossa, it doesn't really hurt to admit you're wrong when you so obviously are.

It's not the grave insult to your pride that you seem to think it is, nor is there any reason to scream nonsense at people who're actually doing you a favor by correcting your misguided assumptions on something that will more likely than not prove useful to you later in life.

Why not just be a man, and confess that you stand corrected? It's not a courtroom, you don't get slapped with penalties if you "lose".

[Kirkburn]

Your (and the other geniuses kind enough to spout their venom here) kind of science is childrens science. It's that what you've learned at school, nary an original thought passes through the net of preconceived, rehashed idea's written down by others you've taken for gospel and is now your yardstick.

Smug, snide ad homini fall part to those daring to question your dogma's learned by rote.

As i said before, the whole system of climategate is now completely clear to me how it could come about.

You take a ******** of mediocre 'scientists' and let them oldboys network themselves into a frenzy.

This whole thread should serve as a model how to filter out deskjockey's from scientists. The higher the level snide sarcasm without discussing to issue posed the worse of a scientist it is.

I should patent it.

Or the alternative theory:

When you are wrong, you get corrected. If you continue to assert that you are correct in the face of mounting evidence to the opposite you can either become further entrenched in your assertion, or start listening and discussing properly. You are leaning heavily to the former.

Surely it makes sense to you that when someone is plain wrong, they get shouted down. It's not a conspiracy, and it's not people clubbing to together to "fight the outsiders", it just trying to maintain sense. You bring up "climategate" again, which it both a ridiculous event, based on misunderstanding of science, and of little impact to anything.

Let me ask you this: do you see yourself as a scientist? Who are the "real" scientists? Are they commenting in this thread? How do you decide who are the good and bad ones? It seems to be based on whether their hypothesis (not even results) fits your world view at the moment.

[petrossa]

You know, petrossa, it doesn't really hurt to admit you're wrong when you so obviously are.

It's not the grave insult to your pride that you seem to think it is, nor is there any reason to scream nonsense at people who're actually doing you a favor by correcting your misguided assumptions on something that will more likely than not prove useful to you later in life.

Why not just be a man, and confess that you stand corrected? It's not a courtroom, you don't get slapped with penalties if you "lose".

Why TF not read what i've written and than react? Why run around in howling wolfpacks snipping at the heels of prey.

About 99% of the 'responses' here have nothing to do with the OP, but are just a nests of hornets biting everything that moves without even knowing why?

There is NO single one post among the mess that actually addresses the core of my OP.

And i have to take that seriously? Come on. Give me a solid response on what i wrote and we'll see who's wrong or right.

Core of the post:

Sloppy unscientific methods being applied to explain why poor people suffer from worse health, culminating in (it doesn't get more idiotic than that) blaming IQ (something like Tarot reading) only suited to measure how well someone does an IQ test.

Be a man and standup and say: Sheesh do i have egg on my face for not reacting to the OP but to the howling of the pack.

[petrossa]

On topic: the obesity paradox says: obese patients paradoxically produce factors that counter CVD, as the data suggest. However, this has led to no negative consequences:

- It does not encourage obesity adoption.

- It does not state that obesity is a good option to avoid CVD.

The fact remains that obesity has various implications that have not yet been brought to light. The social factors alone warn people not to go down the road of obesity.

Ok, hard of hearing:

Received 17 December 2008; Accepted 11 May 2009; Published online 18 June 2009. http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v18/n1/full/oby2009191a.html?

Abstract

Although a clear risk of mortality is associated with obesity, the risk of mortality associated with overweight is equivocal. The objective of this study is to estimate the relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults. A sample of 11,326 respondents aged ≥25 in the 1994/1995 National Population Health Survey (Canada) was studied using Cox proportional hazards models. A significant increased risk of mortality over the 12 years of follow-up was observed for underweight (BMI <18.5; relative risk (RR) = 1.73, P < 0.001) and obesity class II+ (BMI >35; RR = 1.36, P <0.05). Overweight (BMI 25 to <30) was associated with a significantly decreased risk of death (RR = 0.83, P < 0.05). The RR was close to one for obesity class I (BMI 30?35; RR = 0.95, P >0.05). Our results are similar to those from other recent studies, confirming that underweight and obesity class II+ are clear risk factors for mortality, and showing that when compared to the acceptable BMI category, overweight appears to be protective against mortality. Obesity class I was not associated with an increased risk of mortality.

Which is what i wrote last year after a long research here

All original research, my scientific research.?

Now we take the brilliant piece of scientific work of the OP:

Poor people are sick more often then rich people, sheesh wonder why? Must be because they have low IQ's.

But hey howling pack of semi-literate wolves, keep your mind firmly closed, repeat what you have learned by rote, do a climategate on every dissenter and one day you'll also write a sloppy paper to get your name published.

[PreKe]

Core of the post:

Sloppy unscientific methods being applied to explain why poor people suffer from worse health, culminating in (it doesn't get more idiotic than that) blaming IQ (something like Tarot reading) only suited to measure how well someone does an IQ test.

Since you have demonstrated a complete failure to understand science, it seems a bit odd that you keep making claims about science. Of course, you are rejecting the science because you do not like the conclusion (individuals can't control their own IQ, therefore every person isn't 100% in control of his own life).

You are rejecting the science because it doesn't match your political ideology. Exactly the same thing you are doing in the global warming debate.