In what may well be the first-ever paper to evaluate susceptibility to pseudo-profound BS, Gordon Pennycook and colleagues have found that people who are more susceptible to BS score lower for verbal and fluid intelligence, are more prone to “conspiratorial ideation,” and more likely to “endorse complementary and alternative medicine.” Their paper, “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bull####,” was published in November in the journal Judgment and Decision Making.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
“Historical examples show that even in incredibly secretive organizations, there is always some possibility of an accidental or intentional intrinsic leak whether by whistle-blowing or ineptitude,” he wrote.
Using data from real-world affairs, including the NSA PRISM project, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and the FBI’s 20-year-long forensics scandal that was exposed earlier this year, Grimes created an algorithm that calculated the probability of a cover-up being revealed. He then applied that algorithm to four prominent conspiracy theories—the moon landing hoax, climate change fraud, vaccination conspiracy, and a suppressed cancer cure.
The actual data are sparse, making it difficult to assess, but it would seem there was virtually no difference between the placebo and Cold-FX groups, said James McCormack, a pharmacy professor at the University of British Columbia who has followed the supplement for years.
“I don’t see that it shows any benefit,” he said.
Last edited by troutman; 02-01-2016 at 11:54 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Ben Goldacre from the UK had a good idea; all studies like that should be put on a registry when the company or whoever starts them, with a date as to when they expect results. Then when they don't come out with results, people can start asking where the study went.
Because sitting on studies that don't get the desired results is a thing, he shows in one of his books how you can do funnel plots of groups of studies to see how studies are missing.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Solid and entertaining interview with the editor-in-chief of Skeptic Magazine, Michael Shermer.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
The actual data are sparse, making it difficult to assess, but it would seem there was virtually no difference between the placebo and Cold-FX groups, said James McCormack, a pharmacy professor at the University of British Columbia who has followed the supplement for years.
“I don’t see that it shows any benefit,” he said.
If I recall correctly, even the study they were using in all their marketing showed an effect that was statistically significant but arguably not clinically significant - something like a difference of a couple of hours on the duration of colds.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ashartus For This Useful Post:
I generally watch Maher's show as I like his leftist politics but that interview was over the top. I guess smoking too much mary jane takes away some critical thinking.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
The study was speaking mostly about conspiracies involving a large number of agents:
the results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents) quickly become untenable and prone to failure
Of course there are actual conspiracies, especially those that don't involve a large number of agents.
I think the t also target long stand ones like the moon Landing and said they couldn't be covered up for long enough to succeed. This video kind of proves the point almost all of those came out with 10 years.
Shocking that a blog based on traditional medicine would attack anything that runs counter to traditional medicine. I would think that traditional medicine would follow the scientific method and study the theory. There is something to what this "quack" said, and it was supportive of research completed in Alberta.
I'm a skeptic of most things, but when it comes to disease I don't think we shouldn't be locked into any box. Hell, we're looking at every mold, spore or fungus in the Amazon as possible cures for everything, so why is this so crazy? What this quack says kind of makes some sense when looking for cures. You look at cancer clusters and try and figure out a cause. He's suggesting the opposite, looking at where these diseases don't exist and then trying to figure out why it doesn't exist where it should. All he's doing is working the equation backward. This is an accepted way of finding solutions, so I applaud the guy for doing something different. I'm not sure his research will stand up to review, but I think it is disingenuous to discount the research without doing the peer review. I mean, it would suck to see a possible treatment or cure go by the wayside because it didn't meet the expectations of the establishment. Attack away!
Shocking that a blog based on traditional medicine would attack anything that runs counter to traditional medicine. I would think that traditional medicine would follow the scientific method and study the theory. There is something to what this "quack" said, and it was supportive of research completed in Alberta.
I'm a skeptic of most things, but when it comes to disease I don't think we shouldn't be locked into any box. Hell, we're looking at every mold, spore or fungus in the Amazon as possible cures for everything, so why is this so crazy? What this quack says kind of makes some sense when looking for cures. You look at cancer clusters and try and figure out a cause. He's suggesting the opposite, looking at where these diseases don't exist and then trying to figure out why it doesn't exist where it should. All he's doing is working the equation backward. This is an accepted way of finding solutions, so I applaud the guy for doing something different. I'm not sure his research will stand up to review, but I think it is disingenuous to discount the research without doing the peer review. I mean, it would suck to see a possible treatment or cure go by the wayside because it didn't meet the expectations of the establishment. Attack away!
The reason we "attack" it is because we're not claiming cures or treating people with stuff that isn't proven...
And what is your link proving????
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 02-04-2016 at 09:28 PM.
Shocking that a blog based on traditional medicine would attack anything that runs counter to traditional medicine.
This is very confusing, your criticising the blog for criticising anything that runs counter to traditional medicine, then present something originating from traditional medicine as an example of.. well what I'm not sure, it's confusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
I would think that traditional medicine would follow the scientific method and study the theory. There is something to what this "quack" said, and it was supportive of research completed in Alberta.
This quack didn't say that a virus tuned to replicate only in cancer cells may in the future after much research and science result in an effective treatment for cancer.
The quack says his magical "nemesis theory" (which is not a real theory and the opposite of scientific) of "every disease has an anti-disease organism" means his goat virus can and does prevent AIDS and Cancer and other diseases with no side effects, so buy now.
The quack is attacked not because it's non-traditional medicine, the quack is attacked because he's a quack and doesn't do anything resembling science. Everything on the blog about the quack is substantiated, it's not just a dismissal.
To compare the contents of the UofA link you posted to what this quack is talking about is absurd. EDIT: It's insulting to the intelligence and hard work those real scientists put into their work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
I mean, it would suck to see a possible treatment or cure go by the wayside because it didn't meet the expectations of the establishment. Attack away!
The expectations of the establishment is to demonstrate efficacy, regardless of where it came from.
The guy isn't a quack because he's looking in odd places for results, he's a quack because he doesn't care at all about research or results or science or ethics and jumps immediately to stating that what he has is the magic cure all.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
