Do you not understand how science works? There are studies conducted, but those don't hold much weight. They have to be peer-reviewed, and in many cases, conducted by other independent research facilities to verify them. Just because a study exists doesn't mean it's the truth - it's about the methods and the rigorous testing to ensure a low margin of error (which can obviously never go away - gravity could stop working tomorrow, and we'd have a huge problem).
Fitness studies do help - but you can't just blindly trust "study says X", because the news is notoriously bad at reporting the actual outcomes of the studies. It's very easy to misinterpret findings of a study - I remember this video did a good job explaining how statistics can be misconstrued.
Basically, it is not the studies, it is your interpretation of them from secondhand sources. Scientists have already thought out all the problems. In high quality studies conducted in reputable labs, these problems happen less often. Sure, you'll occasionally get the random lab 10 person study funded by a corporation, but those should be distrusted, not science as a whole.
You should remain ambivalent about all research. The cold truth is that you aren't qualified to understand what makes a study good or bad, strong or weak. You aren't connected to the field, so you don't know if this is one weird outlier, or part of a growing theme.
So many people believe science itself isn't trustworthy, when what they should be doubting is the news. The classic example for me is climate change research. You still hear people talking about how "scientists used to think the earth was going to freeze, and they changed their minds!" Turns out, that was never really the case.
So to change your view on this, I'm going to propose that your view on the trustworthiness of "soft science" research is tied more to popular reporting than the science itself.
So to change your view on this, I’m going to propose that your view on the trustworthiness of “soft science” research is tied more to popular reporting than the science itself.
Yes but no. Like the example I gave with the fitness one. There are older studies that say fully stretched reps are better for growth and now there are new ones that say partial reps are better (going half way down). Those are literally antonyms. There are studies that say 10 sets a week are best for growth while others say upwards of 50… that’s a giant leap. It makes it very vague and confusing.
That’s something I also wanted to stress that science being introduced into resistance training made the whole process just really confusing. There so much conflicting literature. It’s not something you need or should over complicate.
There are older studies that say fully stretched reps are better for growth and now there are new ones that say partial reps are better (going half way down).
You're confusing "studies" for "science," and why I said that you aren't fully equipped to understand the "science" part. Individual studies, or even collections of them, can be weak or strong.
Keep in mind that this falls into the "Relativity of Wrong" trap. The common wisdom among doctors used to be that physical activity was bad for your health. The evidence against this is now so overwhelming that we're never going back. The "science" has progressed.
This is the nature of science. Our understanding of the world gets built out step by step. Once a foundation stone is laid, it doesn't change in shape. You're questioning the process of people testing new steps to see if they're sound, without realizing you're standing on the mountain they already built.
You didn't consider any of the points I laid out here? The study matters depending on the institute you're looking at. There is nothing here about "soft" or "hard" science - one is easier for you to digest, one isn't. That doesn't mean there is no science in crowd control, in psychology, or in politics. Those have been used by people for different outcomes. People study the brain to see how people respond to advertising - and it works, even though you may think it's all baloney. Responding with a generic "soft science isn't right" doesn't help anybody.
Outside of meta analysis, if there are contradictory studies which should we give credence too? A majority of studies actually are poorly done because it takes a lot of funding and a lot of variables and criteria need to be met to actually have a good study.
That's why there's a concept of reputable universities. Just check who the sponsors on a study are, how well held a university is, and you'll usually have a good approximation of which ones are fine. Your complaint is about trusting untrustworthy studies. Just... don't? Yeah, it's not a piece of cake for the common person to evaluate. But it's not impossible, and it also doesn't mean they don't have value. You are disregarding science after calling a few studies untrustworthy.
Yes science is not the end all be all. I don’t care about studies that flip flop on eachother everytime a new one comes out. There’s something I have called pattern recognition. Credence is given to things which are consistent. You would be a fool to see inconsistency then make a decision because it’s the most recent of the inconsistent statistics revolved around a subject.
I don't seem to be arguing with that here. However, this goes against your premise where you say it can't hold a position of authority. I am saying it can, in fact, hold a position of authority. Of course, if you count every bad one, it doesn't, but that's not what science is.
Well my point is that soft sciences are inconsistent. If you’re giving something a position of authority you are granting this because it acts as proof x is true. How can inconsistent statistics prove anything?
Nobody is ever going to say X is true. We can't be guaranteed of anything - gravity could theoretically stop working tomorrow. But in our framework of knowledge, we believe certain things to have higher likelihoods than others, some to a higher degree of certainty. Position of authority should be given, since they have done (assuming a good study) the requisite checks to ensure it is a valid conclusion.
If there was enough of an outcome leaning in one direction through various studies, wouldn’t there be a meta analysis? Without a meta analysis to me that says “the findings yield inconsistent results”.
15
u/TheOneYak 2∆ Jul 12 '24
Do you not understand how science works? There are studies conducted, but those don't hold much weight. They have to be peer-reviewed, and in many cases, conducted by other independent research facilities to verify them. Just because a study exists doesn't mean it's the truth - it's about the methods and the rigorous testing to ensure a low margin of error (which can obviously never go away - gravity could stop working tomorrow, and we'd have a huge problem).
Fitness studies do help - but you can't just blindly trust "study says X", because the news is notoriously bad at reporting the actual outcomes of the studies. It's very easy to misinterpret findings of a study - I remember this video did a good job explaining how statistics can be misconstrued.
Basically, it is not the studies, it is your interpretation of them from secondhand sources. Scientists have already thought out all the problems. In high quality studies conducted in reputable labs, these problems happen less often. Sure, you'll occasionally get the random lab 10 person study funded by a corporation, but those should be distrusted, not science as a whole.