August 8th, 2016: Understanding and Remembrance Day for Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Jody Smith joins with other ME voices in honor of Understanding and Remembrance Day for Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Why We Find And Expose Bad Science (food science)

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by RogerBlack, Oct 7, 2017.

  1. RogerBlack

    RogerBlack Senior Member

    Messages:
    857
    Likes:
    2,786
    https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/why-we-find-and-expose-bad-science-e47387a0e333

    Notable similarities - the researchers involved are making comments about it being all personal, and all the errors being 'minor'.
     
  2. TiredSam

    TiredSam The wise nematode hibernates

    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes:
    21,528
    Germany
    Sounds familiar. Very good article, makes some good points very relevant to our situation.
     
  3. Woolie

    Woolie Gone now, hope to see you all again soon somewhere

    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes:
    14,527
    This article is so relevant to the issues we have been facing trying to get our voices heard.

    Its a story about the nutrition research headed by a guy called Wansink. The writer (James Heathers) and several others found evidence of serious errors and dodgy practices in this team's work. Wansink counterattacked by accusing them of cuber bullying, and suggested they may be trying to topple a public initiative started by him and his mates, which has something to do with improving school lunches.

    Other terms Wansink and co used to smear their critics were "shameless little bullies" and "destructo-critics". "Instead of using their skills for good, to help people do better work, rather many of [sic] used their skills to tear people down".

    Heathers' response is powerful.
    Another defence Wansink and co raise is that “These problems sound like they’re endemic. Why are you analysing papers instead of criticising scientific culture as a whole?” Heathers replies thus:
    The article then reports how the dodgy researchers constantly minimised the seriousness of their errors. Wansink and co said:
    “Science is messy in a lot of ways,”
    "...most errors stemmed from “missing data, rounding errors, and [some numbers] being off by 1 or 2.”
    "...All the numbers seem to be within one baby carrot of each other. Still, if we can track this data down, we’ll be able to see if this was due to recording, rounding, or measurement"

    According to Heathers:
    Heathers wonders:
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2017
  4. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    Likes:
    17,959
    It's déjà vu all over again.
     
  5. TiredSam

    TiredSam The wise nematode hibernates

    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes:
    21,528
    Germany
    I did like this. It applies not only to Psycho Social Club members such as Wessley and Crawley, who are unable to see criticism of their work as anything other than a personal attack, but also to some proponents of some therapies who take personal offence when their views aren't simply accepted without question.
     
    Snowdrop, Orla, Valentijn and 7 others like this.
  6. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes:
    7,561
    Goes to show that there are always some rogues who don't like following the rules that everyone else uses.

    Nutrition is the arse end of food science, where much pseudoscience thrives (a bit like psychiatry and some areas of neurology in medicine)...seems like the pattern is

    Not very good academically, hates following rules, has a very large overinflated ego...therefore choose a soft option to specialise in.

    Criteria for soft option: complicated subject, very little science, lots of unproven theories and opinions, attractive to politicians wanting to save money.

    Defence mechanisms: we don't know everything, criticising what I do means you are just being mean, manipulate media and politicians to prop up lack of skill.

    These are techniques used in politics and management generally. It's interesting that the pattern is so similar ....almost like what's going on here at PR at the moment?
     
  7. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    Likes:
    17,959
    The likes of Wessely and Crawley inevitably made it about themselves by refusing to take heed of their critics. That means the problem is also them, not just their ideas.
     
    ladycatlover, TiredSam, BurnA and 2 others like this.
  8. IreneF

    IreneF Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes:
    2,552
    San Francisco
    I sense more than meets the eye with W. and C. They are not just being asswipes because god made them that way. The likeliest explanation is money. The others are marriage to one's ideas and a feeling of superiority.

    Anyway, mindlessly slagging them is just flogging a dead horse, as well as providing them with ammunition. Criticize their work, not them. Don't use their names unless referring to a paper.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page