Scientific Study Reveals That Most Scientific Studies Aren't Very Scientific

Bad Statistics Makes For Bad Science

A scientific study has revealed that drinking a cup of coffee a day will make you live to be 180 years old.

But wait.

There’s another scientific study out there claiming that if you even say the word coffee your liver will start to deteriorate and your kids will grow up to be Auburn fans.

I’ve noticed something about all of the scientific studies out there. They don’t seem to be very scientific. And it appears that I’m not the only one who’s noticed this. John Ioannidis is a professor at Stanford University. He’s a scientist who has spent a lot of time studying scientific studies. He says that most of them are, “sloppy” and don’t include large enough samples to back up the outrageous claims they make.

One day you’ll read a report on how rutabagas will cure you of cancer so you’ll go out to the store and buy a bushel, or quart, or whatever it is that people use to measure rutabagas. You’ll eat rutabagas in your morning kale smoothie, with your lunch, and as part of your dinner. You’ll hate it. It’ll make you want to throw up. But who cares? You won’t get cancer. You can rest easy.

Until you read another study that a friend posted on Facebook claiming that rutabagas have been known to cause eye cancer in fish. You’ll panic, go back to the store and exchange your rutabagas for candy bars, figuring if you’re going to go out , you might as well go out feeling good. You’ll feel even better about this decision a few weeks later when you read a report out there informing you that the combination of high fructose corn syrup, chocolate, and yellow number 5 that you’ve been getting from that candy bar has been known to unclog the arteries of certain gerbils.

There's a scientific study out there that will say whatever you want it to say.

Life is good.

There was a time when news outlets at least pretended to care about facts. Now, clicks are all the rage. An in-depth article about how the conclusions of a recent study on the impact of red wine on the circulatory system won’t get near the clicks that an article with a headline reading Drink Up, Red Wine Proven To Cure Heart Disease will. Guess which one your favorite news outlet is more likely to go with.

When it comes to reading the news, you have to be your own editor. That is to say that you have to learn how to work your way through the heaping piles of misinformation that are out there. In many ways, you also have to be your own doctor. At the very least, you can’t let the Internet do it for you.

Here’s a scientific study of my own.

Go to one of those medical websites, tell them a few symptoms you’ve experienced throughout your life and wait for the results.

I’ll wait here until you're done.

It told you that you’re probably going to die early next week, didn’t it?

I can see the headline now.

Recent scientific study reveals that most people who visit medical websites fear dying by early next week

Instead of relying on the myriad of contradicting studies that come out every day, just use your common sense. Talk to a qualified nutritionist, naturopath, or doctor. Put more stock in what those people, the ones who know you and your unique make up and who have more to lose if they’re wrong, than you do what some guy on the Internet said.

And go drink a cup of coffee.

Stop worrying about whether or not it’s taking years off of your life. Just enjoy it. And remember, no one is getting out of here alive, no matter how many rutabagas they eat.

Spend more time thinking about what happens after you die than you do relying on the latest scientific study that promises to help you avoid dying.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go give my 180-year-old great grandfather his daily cup of coffee.

No. 1-25
Jules** et al, thank you very much for your help in illustrating the mindset of the Left.

We can talk about the way the Left handles being confronted, how they Left reverts to attacks and insults when thwarted, how the Left can't handle open discourse and tries to shout it down or shut it down. We can offer example after example, taken from the news.

But nothing is more effective than seeing it in action. Your spoofing of my screen name to hide behind as you exhibit your own degeneracy is really enlightening----it not only shows how much open discourse threatens you, it offers a vivid, if unwelcome, peek into your truly disturbed mind. The first is illustrative of the way the Left has to handle discourse, the second merely confirms the perceptions of your sexuality and general morality that you have conveyed.

Remember, after you repeatedly identified me as a man you also repeatedly begged me to fellate you, in gross detail. The rest of your posts show similar obsessions. But that's just your pathology.

I'm talking about your fear of conflicting opinions expressed in ways you can't handle And you admit, through your hijacking of my screen name, that your only recourse is to try to shut me down.

This blog is Erick's baby, so I guess all we can do is sit back and see how much he values it----if he likes having it a forum for open and respectful discourse or if he is happy to have it taken over by vulgar blog vandals intent on driving off the rational posters and taking over the forum as their own territory, where only fellow travelers are welcome.


@Tell It Right Assuming you are referring to this:

I wouldn't hang my hat on people being sued for libel.

Your comparing scientists to a cult may play well with the tribe, but rational, thinking, people actually look at the data. The recent models are looking quite accurate.

Ignore it, and hope for the best, isn't a plan.

Tell It Right
Tell It Right

Actually more & more they hide their data & methodologies from each other. Take UEA's & Michael Mann's (Penn State) tree ring circus. The "scientific community" supported their results without knowing about all the tree rings that the global warmists excluded from the dataset because they didn't support the ritualistic chant. If it weren't for the hacked emails nobody would have known about the excluded data (or the bogus computer "modeling" algorithms to generate Al Gore's hockey stick). The few that do speak out for sticking to the scientific method against the grain get shunned from the cult.


@Tell It Right Actually criticizing the findings is one of the core principals of science.

However, to do that, you are expected to do so on data driven, fact based, grounds. I don't like the conclusion, isn't a valid reason for criticism.

In science and engineering, you need evidence and data to support your position, or else other will rightfully tell you to leave.

Tell It Right
Tell It Right

Scientific consensus is more like clique acceptance credentials. Just like no one who wants to be part of the Justin Bieber fan club is gonna say his music sounds like crap, nobody who wants to be part of the "scientific community" is gonna criticize their cult-like "findings".