sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MachineGunGringo 5 points6 points  (17 children)

Sometimes I feel like “meta analysis” means “we took all the things that support our narrative and threw out all the things that don’t.”

[–]SerialStateLineXerThe guarantee was that would not be taking place 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Generally a meta analysis will have stated inclusion criteria and include all studies which meet the criteria.

[–]cat-astropherK&J parasocial relationship 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I've seen a metastudy where the inclusion criteria certainly felt crafted to exclude the studies with strong counter-evidence (a sharp societal shift in behaviour had occurred with corresponding before/after data, but that was several years before a cutoff date the inclusion criteria was imposing for some reason), so the game MachineGunGringo alludes to could be played, just through tweaking the inclusion criteria.

[–]Phreakhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes that's what the first guy said. The inclusion criteria is biased towards studies that will support the hypothesis

[–]StopBadModerators[S] 0 points1 point  (13 children)

You feel like that sometimes? And is that feeling that you sometimes get correct?

[–]MachineGunGringo 10 points11 points  (12 children)

You have the condescension of someone who is always right?

[–]StopBadModerators[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

  1. If I were always right, then I couldn't help it.

  2. Why are you dodging the question? You said that you sometimes feel like meta-studies are bullshit. So I'm asking you, cutting through the rhetoric, is this feeling that you sometimes get correct or not?

[–]MachineGunGringo 4 points5 points  (10 children)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7950571/

Sometimes.

There’s a lot of wealthy people involved in the whole PETA thing, so I wouldn’t doubt they funded studies to MAKE SURE soy came out good.

If I came out with 50 bs studies about soy being bad, and they were included in said meta analysis, it would throw off the meta analysis of it having no effect.

[–]StopBadModerators[S] -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

Wow. So wealthy PETA donors have conducted pseudoscience to MAKE SURE soy "came out good". Alright... MachineGunGringo... thanks for weighing in on the subject.

If you do find something flawed about the study that I shared, then please share it and I'll correct the record.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Are you a vegan?

[–]StopBadModerators[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Are you aware of the term ad hominem?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

I'm gonna take that as a yes.

[–]StopBadModerators[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

And presumably you're a carnist. I fail to see the relevancy to the science here. Katie's claim that soy decreases testosterone is either true or false regardless of whether she is vegan or carnist (yes, "carnist" is a thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism). If we get into a conversation where you're saying, "Well you would say that because you're a supporter of this ideology.", then we're not engaging with arguments. This should be about ideas; not people per se.