Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols

To expand, this study is interesting in that it opens an avenue for further investigation. It's like learning an extra person was at the scene of crime. It proves nothing, and doesn't even necessarily SUGGEST anything. It's just another "lead" that researchers should investigate.

In this case, it doesn't help that the additional "suspect" is something sexy like protein-rich diets.

> The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue.

That's because the public as a whole usually wants cut-and-dry statements and black-and-white issues. And the news caters to the public.



It's not interesting. It's garbage. There's too much noise in their input data to derive any meaning whatsoever.

Garbage in, garbage out.


Show me on the doll where the science touched you.


That's where you're confused. What they're doing isn't "science". They make no predictions and perform no experiments.

They're simply using statistics to analyze data. Their data is bad. That means that their results are meaningless.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: