DePaul: Deconstructing post-exertional malaise: An exploratory factor analysis

[BruceInOz]

They can be if stated as an hypothesis. They are not if stated as fact.

Exactly. But the causal statements like this that I'm referring to always seem to pop up in the discussion or conclusion as if a fact inferable from the evidence presented when it's not. The next paper will reference this one as evidence of the statement. No attempt is ever made to provide evidence to support the causal hypothesis.

 

[Keela Too]

A good write-up should probably look at several hypotheses to explain the data, followed by a discussion on which might be the most plausible.

Eg It is more likely that severe symptoms prevent an individual from being able to work,
than it is likely that the work itself causes the individual to have fewer symptoms.

It is interesting that this paper does explore a variety of options for the data they collated.

And as rightly pointed out elsewhere the BPS folk tend to just suggest one explanation, and without another for contrast, theirs might seem a fairly plausible suggestion to a casual reader.

Muddling the discussion in complicated language is another BPS technique used to distract the reader from considering alternative explanations for the same data.

 

[Keela Too]

Exactly. But the causal statements like this that I'm referring to always seem to pop up in the discussion or conclusion as if a fact inferable from the evidence presented when it's not. The next paper will reference this one as evidence of the statement. No attempt is ever made to provide evidence to support the causal hypothesis.

Good point! And with increasing numbers of papers being produced, it becomes more and more complicated to get back to the source of any statement, and so no-one bothers, and so the unsupported inference becomes an accepted conclusion! Scary stuff.

 

[alex3619]

And with increasing numbers of papers being produced, it becomes more and more complicated to get back to the source of any statement

This is correct, but it has always been thus. What separates good scientists from the rest is that they take this extra step. They do their homework. They think rigorously and love finding new evidence.

 

[Snow Leopard]

Yes, this is a generally positive sounding piece. But isn't it fascinating how in all of this sort of research the conclusions turn on the unsupported interpretation of the researchers.

The only truth in science (assuming there is no misconduct) is the method and the raw results!