• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Good Science vs Bad Science?

good science bad science science pubmed

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 jroseland

  • Guest
  • 1,117 posts
  • 162
  • Location:Europe

Posted 20 June 2017 - 01:55 PM


How do you tell the difference between good and bad science?

 

As a layperson browsing the Abstracts or the content of a given study or paper available on Pubmed how do I tell the difference between credible science and not so credible science?

 

I know that (like in any other domain of human endeavor) there is a spectrum of quality and accuracy in science. Some double, blind placebo controlled human research is excellent but some is tantamount to a ranty, opinionated blog, like the recent (hilarious!) hoax paper...

"The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct"

...That actually got published in a mainstream social science journal.

 

My interest is mostly in human science related to health and longevity. This field science is particularly vulnerable to corruption because of the commercialization of the science. Most of the science is done to develop Biohacking products and supplements, which is fine but I'm sure that there is some marketing masquerading itself as science in pages of journals and on Pubmed.

 

Without getting too political, how does one tell the difference between credible science and junk science?

 

Sometimes it's pretty obvious like with the Conceptual Penis paper, but sometimes I'm just looking at the paragraph abstract of study that was done 10 or 20 years ago and I'm not sure if it's something I should really believe.

 

Recently 62 scientists and physicians, and five United States senators petitioned the National Library of Medicine & National Institutes of Health to make public the funding sources of studies. I did a video about this...

 

However the conflict of interest information does not appear on a lot of studies. If there's no conflict of interest information available what other signs might there be that one should trust or distrust a study you find on Pubmed? 

 


Edited by jroseland, 20 June 2017 - 02:17 PM.


#2 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,837 posts
  • 720
  • Location:Austria

Posted 22 June 2017 - 11:32 AM

 

How do you tell the difference between good and bad science?

 

I came to this world of science pretty innocent, initially because of a medically non-reversible disease almost 9 years ago. And must admit got a huge push in learning by joining this forum and in particular reading this one 17 pages thread:

 

http://www.longecity...s-good-for-you/

 

It takes apart the junk-science surrounding tobacco smoking. And even though moderators have added to the OP the remark: "Most of this topic has been debunked." In fact with junk-science only. If anyone here indeed would be able to 'debunk' without junk, I and many others would be greatly impressed. This example also shows it's not only money which paves the way to junk, but common sense and conventions. Real discernment only, with abandonment to anything counter, helps to sieve out junk-science. There are very few with these qualities.


  • like x 1

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#3 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 05 July 2017 - 01:32 PM

"on Pubmed how do I tell the difference between credible science and not so credible science"

Practically you can't. Science, e.g. the entire world depends on the consciousness and the scruples of the scientists. This is a part of the effectiveness and the ineffectiveness of the science.

 

You may eventually detect  a study, that looks suspicious, if it is a study on a subject that is your speciality. The problem here is, that if it is made by a proffessional, you will miss it.

 

A way to select the credible ones is if to use the multicentric approach. It is to see if simmilar results are being produced from other scinetists, all over the world, even from rival teams. Here the problem is that the most of the studies can't be compared each one with the another, because they have been done under different circumstances.

 

The best is to reproduce the study yourself. Then you can be perfectly sure. But ... again, you can't reproduce all of the studies published every day.

 



To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#4 Florian Xavier

  • Guest
  • 242 posts
  • 37

Posted 23 July 2017 - 12:35 PM

we should add "bulshit science" to  increase the amonth of useless papers by a large margin. exemple : young blood, nad+, foxo genes studies...


Edited by Florian Xavier, 23 July 2017 - 12:36 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: good science, bad science, science, pubmed

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users