Reddit reviews Bad Science
We found 29 Reddit comments about Bad Science. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Reddit reviews Bad ScienceWe found 29 Reddit comments about Bad Science. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Bad Science by Goldacre is a great book if anyone is interested.
You should both read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
He gives a brilliant description of random double blind trials, and lays out exactly why they are the gold standard for demonstrating a treatment's efficacy.
It's a wonderfully clear and sober explanation of how the scientific method should be applied to medicine.
twitch
People are so amazingly stupid that I have no clue what to do anymore. The sad thing is, she is not only putting her own child at risk, but also making it easier for disease to spread.
You can try using logical arguments but from experience, I know that these people do not listen. From the people I know who reject vaccination, they tend to be the pseudo "Nu" Age types who seem to have adopted it after abandoning religion.
> The inherit problem is, that medical research in the west, especially in regards to stem cells, is fundamentally different from that done in china. And in my opinion, this is the major reason why this treatment has emerged here first.
>
> [...]
>
> The clinical trials [in the US] have to be done in a very specific way. In particular, every patient receive the exactly same treatment. As we established above though, stem cell treatment is a very individualized affair. The result is, that you have a large group of patients where only a small group gains some effect and most likely none of the patients receives the full benefits possible.
This is a typical alt-med trope. And it's a smoke screen: There are no regulations in place that force researchers to give their patients anything less than what they think is best. The only thing you have to do is exchange (what you believe to be) the key component (in your case the stem cells) with something inert, and make sure everything else stays the same - especially that the patient (and at best also the practitioners) don't know who got the "real" treatment and who got the "fake".
It's really that easy.
Please, I do not doubt your good intentions, and I believe that you are convinced your treatments work. But pretty please, with a cherry on top, may I suggest you get your hands on a copy on Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science"? It's a fun read and it explains how easy it is, in the health care business, to get carried away by a convincing concept and the feedback from patients.
Quackwatch is a great source for debunking medical pseudoscience, and if you scroll to the bottom of the main page, you'll find links to other sites that might also help you understand the science to debunk pseudoscience:
http://www.quackwatch.com/
If you want to understand basic science, but don't have time to take a course, there's plenty of good content that can be found on iTunes -- especially the online courses.
But ultimately, your best resource will always be books. Specifically, you should start with physics. Milton Rothman's A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism is perhaps the best book for understanding how to debunk pseudoscience: http://www.amazon.com/Physicists-Guide-Skepticism-Faster-Than-Light-Pseudoscientific/dp/0879754400
After that, read Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best
http://www.amazon.com/Damned-Lies-Statistics-Untangling-Politicians/dp/0520219783/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372276538&sr=1-3&keywords=joel+best
And then Lies, Damned Lies, and Science by Sherry Seethaler
http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Damned-Science-Scientific-Controversies/dp/0132849445/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372276572&sr=1-1&keywords=sherry+seethaler
And then finish it with Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Quacks-Pharma-Flacks/dp/0865479186/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372276598&sr=1-1&keywords=bad+science+by+ben+goldacre
Amazon Buy Link for the Lazy
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan for general science.
Stuff by James Randi, Michael Shermer for general stuff about new age crap.
The Panic Virus by Seth Mnookin and Deadly Choices by Paul Offit on the Anti-Vaccination movement.
Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best and How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff (Also see How to Lie with Maps by Mark Monomonier for a similar subject) for questioning stats and graphics used in the news.
Is there anything specifically you're interested in?
> Please admit that you were wrong.
No.
You keep mixing up "herbal medicine" (which I freely admitted could be used to treat symptoms of the plague) and "aroma therapy" (done with herbs/spices; was all over the link you first posted). The link you posted here is for an in-vitro study to reduce bacterial counts, not to cure microbiological infections in real human patients.
Nevertheless, I never said that herbal medicines don't ever work for nothing. I said that aroma therapy (as promoted by your linked webshop) is bullshit.
quoted in the following is this post:
> Look friend, just because someone is selling something does not change the physical and chemical realities of whether or not it works. I thought the original link I posted had far more cites, but since you decided to cuss me out over it (unprofessional), I changed it to a more neutral wikipedia.
> If you had a more open mind, you would have actually viewed the citations before making a snap decision. "Guilty by association" is a logical fallacy - you can't call something medically ineffective just because it's contained on a webshop.
Look buddy, I'm not your friend (scnr). I called bullshit on your source, because it was a snake-oil salesman. The problem is not that it's a webshop, the problem is that it's a webshop that sells bullshit herbal remedies to unsuspecting people, based on an understanding of medicine that was disproved 150 years ago.
> Now you tell me, what is wrong with posting an article that contains citations like this?
> The Scientific American Cyclopedia of Formulas, 1910, p878
> The New Sydenham Society's Lexicon of Medicine and the Allied Sciences, 1881
> Medical Lexicon: A Dictionary of Medical Science, 1874, p10
> Popular Science Monthly, Volume 30, January 1887, p383
> The Scientific American Cyclopedia of Formulas, 1901, p585
> Paris Pharmacologia, Volume 2, 1825, p18
> The Elements of Materia Medica and Therapeutics, Volume 2, 1854, p946
Wow, I really have to tell you that articles from before antibiotics were invented are outdated? You really want to argue infectious theory wit citations from 1825, or 1854, years before the field of Microbiology was even established by Pasteur and Koch? Are you kidding me?!
> Furthermore, I find your claims that anti-bacterial herbs would do nothing against a bacterial disease to be....bullshit.
> You sound like an angry guy who has a bone to pick against herbal medicine.
Damn right I am, and damn right I do. Please read this and the therein referenced paper for the reasons. I can also recommend Bad Science: The Book.
> You are ignoring the historical fact of this vinegar's use. Talk about intellectual dishonesty....you only need to look in the mirror, musschrott.
No. a) I'm far too ugly for me to do that. b) Your "historical fact of this vinegar's use" is based contemporary rumours that are conveyed by the sources. There are no facts as to whether they worked - because, most probably, they didn't.
The book Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks is well worth the read.
You're absolutely right. My 'placebo's are good' argument is more something I use to get the ball rolling with advocates of homeopathy. My real views are a lot stronger.
My (otherwise rational, PhD holding) mum used to give us homeopathic drops for colds and flus. I took the drops, had lots of rest, drank lots of fruit juice, tea and water, and wouldn't you know it, a few days later the cold would be gone!
In the case of a flu, you've just wasted a few bucks on sugar pills or drops of water and alcohol. Best case scenario the placebo effect actually helped you feel better and recover faster. But if you replace real medicine with homeopathy when treating more serious ailments, that's a serious health risk.
If you want to read a funny and insightful book about homeopathy, nutritionists and other quacks, I recommend Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.
Ben Goldacre is great. Although it's written for a layman audience, I loved and highly recommend his book Bad Science.
No problem! The book is available via amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Quacks-Pharma-Flacks/dp/0865479186/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367415203&sr=8-1&keywords=bad+science
Ben Goldacre wrote a weekly column of the same name ("Bad Science") for the Guardian. It's also the name of his blog:
http://www.badscience.net
Attribution:
> You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.
I would recommend you get her to read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. It's very informative and would probably help explain why fake remedies, homeopathy etc. don't work.
I would highly recommend his recent book Bad Science.
His chapter on the Placebo Effect is interesting and has a slant that I had not considered. Essentially there is no Placebo Effect specifically. That is, the Placebo Effect is not that a placebo can cause the same physical effects as a specific medication. It is that a particular, let say ailment, can improve without a person being subjected to the medication which is specifically designed to improve or cure the condition.
Illness has a cycle in people, improving or declining naturally and how you analyze the use of placebo is very important.
This directly opposes the hot topic now that you can give people fake pills and they'll get better BECAUSE OF THE FAKE PILLS when that is not what the placebo effect indicates.
Read the book - it's something that everyone who eats or takes a pill should read cover to cover.
I've read a few books that might cover these:
They all deal with belief systems and logical reasoning in different ways. Some of the focus on the message, others focus on the perception of the message.
I am not sure this will give you 100% of what you are looking for, but a good start might be Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Quacks-Pharma-Flacks/dp/0865479186/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459223360&sr=8-1&keywords=bad+science
If the study was funded by the company that made the drug, you should be very, very wary. The "big pharma hacks" book is a great read, btw. Link
I suggest the book - Bad Science. The first or second chapter has a section on detox. Not finished with it yet so I can't tell you if there's much more in there relevant to your specific query. So if you just want that answered it'll be a waste of money, but I would recommend it anyways. So far it's been pretty awesome.
Edit: Different link
I've rarely met anyone who is "SUPER against" X, and could be persuaded by evidence. However, a good place to start is with Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. He has a Ted talk if you can catch your wife on an open-minded day.
Reminds me of the book Bad Science.
Hey, it's been a month since you made it, but thank you for the suggestion. I did buy a book from this author based on your comment. I gave it to a family member who was interested, but called dibs on reading it next. Thanks again.
OP, please read this.
I am pretty sure it is discussed in Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science. Even if not, there are some links via the references of the wiki article.
I agree people should limit fat/calorie/sugar intake to healthy levels, but I disagree that me eating 3tbsp's worth of oil on a salad for lunch is unhealthy... especially compared to the people eating crap like pizza for lunch (which has no added oil or sugar).
There's also a lot of truly dodgy science out there, even by people who might look like experts on paper and have fabulous reputations.
If you're at all interested in some very good science writing on dodgy science (mainly focused on health & medicine), check out the book "Bad Science"
This book.
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.
Gives you a toolkit of critical thinking & teaches how to sift out the BS.
This isn't heavily science-y and a bit journalized, but I really enjoyed Stiff: The Curious Life of Human Cadaver's by Mary Roach. I also like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. There's a lot of overlap with what he teaches at his UChicago Eco & Evo course. Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is also wonderful, but will likely make you angry. Yet another interesting read is The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.
I don't think that math abilities are really what is required. Much of research methods isn't math at all but critical thinking instead. Research methods textbooks, however, are uniformly awful and make what should be one of the most exciting parts of what we do (figuring out if it actually works!) seem horribly boring and unapproachable.
If I ever teach a research methods class (I won't), the only required text will be Bad Science by Ben Goldacre