A new study found that completely eliminating meat from one’s diet may significantly reduce the risk of developing cancer, with figures reaching up to 45% less risk for some cancers compared to those…
Yes, fine, this is what I am saying: Take issue with the findings of the model, not epidemiological data (edit: as a technique that is akin to theology). Focus on that.
I’m not being hyperbolic
It was theology before, but now that hazard ratio is fine, because the number is big? There’s big numbers in the bible too, friend. This is what I would call hyperbole. Either it’s theology or it’s not.
Yes, fine, this is what I am saying: Take issue with the findings of the model, not epidemiological data. Focus on that.
I totally agree with you, actually.
Under what circumstances would I personally look at a observational epidemiology study and consider it to modify my behavior?
Hazard Ratios greater then 4 (far greater honestly, but 4 is the floor)
Absolute Risk reported in the paper (not relative)
Clear signal across different studies
However, this is so rare, that it is exceptional.
It was theology before, but now that hazard ratio is fine, because the number is big? There’s big numbers in the bible too, friend. This is what I would call hyperbole. Either it’s theology or it’s not.
It does not prove causation, there is no downside to giving up smoking, so why not? Does smoking cause cancer in all circumstances, no. So, give up smoking, sure why not. Does smoking cause cancer? It hasn’t been proven.
There is more nuance here, in some contexts smoking is correlated with cancer. I have my own personal theories on the incidence of cancer increasing even though smoking has existed throughout documented history, but that is neither here nor there.
there is no downside to giving up smoking, so why not?
To you there is no downside. People actually do take up smoking for reasons. For example, I have worked shitty jobs where smokers get extra breaks, or get extra time to bullshit with the boss. They also might do it because they feel it looks cool. These are not valid reasons for me (being that it is unhealthy, expensive, and messy). It sure seems like I’m being nit picky here, but this statement just isn’t true! It’s also pretty hard to quit if you’ve started, why bother doing it? The money may be less important than the downsides of withdrawals there. It’s why it’s important to point out that smoking is bad for you, and epistemological studies is one of the tools we have for that.
Similarly, people give up meat for reasons that do not make sense to you: It can be expensive, it can contain pathogens, industrial farming is a blight, etc etc etc. For them, the benefits do not outweigh the negatives. I’m not litigating this. I’m just pointing it out. I eat meat. This isn’t part of my identity, it is the force of gravity for me. Eating meat is easy.
There is more nuance here
Incredible that you’re speaking about nuance when you’ve just called epistemology theology. I mean I totally agree with you, the devil is in the details, but… damn dude. :')
Ah, I see our disconnect. I don’t think of epidemiology as theology at all. I think of the abandonment of science throwing up all enquiry on a subject because its hard to test, but still using weak epidemiology to inform public policy, guidelines, and even lifestyle… that is theology.
Epidemiology is a tool that can be used in science, it is hypothesis generating after all, but by itself it is not science, it is a part of science, not the end of science.
Using weak epidemiology to inform public policy, etc, is bad.
Calling epidemiology guessing, or saying that it’s use is “not in the realm of empiricism but of theology” is hyperbole. If you’re going to critique a paper because it’s being presented to a layman audience, you should probably avoid that (that being: exaggeration. Don’t do that.).
This has, more or less been my point for this entire comment chain. Your exaggeration is harmful to your overall argument. Especially because people take up a sports-team sort of ideological following for eating meat vs not eating meat. I’d be especially avoidant of exaggeration for that reason.
Yes, fine, this is what I am saying: Take issue with the findings of the model, not epidemiological data (edit: as a technique that is akin to theology). Focus on that.
It was theology before, but now that hazard ratio is fine, because the number is big? There’s big numbers in the bible too, friend. This is what I would call hyperbole. Either it’s theology or it’s not.
I totally agree with you, actually.
However, this is so rare, that it is exceptional.
It does not prove causation, there is no downside to giving up smoking, so why not? Does smoking cause cancer in all circumstances, no. So, give up smoking, sure why not. Does smoking cause cancer? It hasn’t been proven.
There is more nuance here, in some contexts smoking is correlated with cancer. I have my own personal theories on the incidence of cancer increasing even though smoking has existed throughout documented history, but that is neither here nor there.
To you there is no downside. People actually do take up smoking for reasons. For example, I have worked shitty jobs where smokers get extra breaks, or get extra time to bullshit with the boss. They also might do it because they feel it looks cool. These are not valid reasons for me (being that it is unhealthy, expensive, and messy). It sure seems like I’m being nit picky here, but this statement just isn’t true! It’s also pretty hard to quit if you’ve started, why bother doing it? The money may be less important than the downsides of withdrawals there. It’s why it’s important to point out that smoking is bad for you, and epistemological studies is one of the tools we have for that.
Similarly, people give up meat for reasons that do not make sense to you: It can be expensive, it can contain pathogens, industrial farming is a blight, etc etc etc. For them, the benefits do not outweigh the negatives. I’m not litigating this. I’m just pointing it out. I eat meat. This isn’t part of my identity, it is the force of gravity for me. Eating meat is easy.
Incredible that you’re speaking about nuance when you’ve just called epistemology theology. I mean I totally agree with you, the devil is in the details, but… damn dude. :')
Ah, I see our disconnect. I don’t think of epidemiology as theology at all. I think of the abandonment of science throwing up all enquiry on a subject because its hard to test, but still using weak epidemiology to inform public policy, guidelines, and even lifestyle… that is theology.
Epidemiology is a tool that can be used in science, it is hypothesis generating after all, but by itself it is not science, it is a part of science, not the end of science.
Weak epidemiology can be engineered for any result you want… Paper - Grilling the data: application of specification curve analysis to red meat and all-cause mortality
Yes, there does seem to be a disconnect here.
Using weak epidemiology to inform public policy, etc, is bad.
Calling epidemiology guessing, or saying that it’s use is “not in the realm of empiricism but of theology” is hyperbole. If you’re going to critique a paper because it’s being presented to a layman audience, you should probably avoid that (that being: exaggeration. Don’t do that.).
This has, more or less been my point for this entire comment chain. Your exaggeration is harmful to your overall argument. Especially because people take up a sports-team sort of ideological following for eating meat vs not eating meat. I’d be especially avoidant of exaggeration for that reason.
I didn’t say epidemiology was guessing
I said the statistical controls for confounding variables are guesses. And that is true
I didn’t say epidemiology was theology.
The abandonment of science, falling back onto week epidemiology is theology
I don’t know how to express this more clearly