/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7433543]

Is most scientific research bullshit?

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/what-makes-us-fat/

[Anonymous No.7433545]

Yup. It's mostly about proving pet theories on which careers and incomes are based. There are the odd exceptions, but for the most part nobody is going to come out against a theory they've spent their whole life supporting/teaching, so numbers get twisted, certain studies get published and others don't, and the results reflect what the scientists want to believe, not reality.

[Anonymous No.7433548]

Yes and no. More accurately than methodological flaws, is that human reasoning is usually bullshit.

Why people are fat is obvious. It's an issue that can be readily solved with very basic heuristics, even without real knowledge of any of the underlying mechanics. People simply don't want to go along with it. Large companies creating processed food also don't want to go along with it, for equally obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.7433561]

Taubes is a crackpot. Population studies have legitimate uses. Conspiracy theories about publication bias are absurd.

[Anonymous No.7433566]

>>7433561
>Conspiracy theories
Oh look, it's this phrase again.

Shush. For you it is clearly the time to listen and think. Do not speak.

[Anonymous No.7433568]

>>7433561
>Conspiracy theories about publication bias are absurd.

Except for when the publication bias is against someone's pet theory, in which case it becomes a real thing pretty quick.

[Anonymous No.7433572]

>>7433566
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.7433573]

>>7433543
the only thing I could support from this is that certain kinds of food make you hungry earlier or increase your appetite so that you eat more even though you aren't in physical need of food.

[Anonymous No.7433574]

>>7433568
I'm sure the earth being round is just someone's pet theory. Simultaneous 4-day time cube has overwhelming evidence and definitely not a pseudo-intellectual's misinterpretation of the data.