RobinZ comments on Even if you have a nail, not all hammers are the same - Less Wrong

95 Post author: PhilGoetz 29 March 2010 06:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (125)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Rain 30 March 2010 02:16:26PM *  17 points [-]

I don't understand. Why is "they used the wrong statistical formula" worth 47 upvotes on the main article? Because people here are interested in supplementation? Because it's a fun math problem?

In the other comments, people are discussing which algorithm would be more appropriate, and debating the nuances of each particular method. Not willing to take the time to understand the math, it comes across as, "This could be right, or wrong, depending on such-and-such, and boy isn't that stupid..."

I run into this problem every time I read anything on health or medicine (it seems limited to these topics). Someone says it's good for you, someone says it's bad for you, both sides attack the other's (complex, expert) methods, and the non-expert is left even more confused than when they first started looking into the matter. And it doesn't help that personal outcomes can be drastically different regardless of the normal result.

To me, this topic is still confusing, with a slight update toward "take more vitamins." Without taking classes in statistics and/or medicine, how can I become less wrong on problems like this? Who can I trust, and why?

Comment author: RobinZ 30 March 2010 02:34:52PM 0 points [-]

I don't understand. Why is "they used the wrong statistical formula" worth 47 upvotes on the main article? Because people here are interested in supplementation? Because it's a fun math problem?

I am approximately cynical enough to suggest "the LessWrong community likes debunking" as a reason.

Is it worth 49 points? Almost certainly not. This indicates a flaw with the karma system, not a flaw in the post.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 April 2010 01:55:10AM 7 points [-]

Is it worth 49 points?

Absolutely. It's worth the 59 points that it is at now. How science, and health related science in particular is used poorly is valuable information.

Comment author: xamdam 01 April 2010 01:37:53AM 3 points [-]

Another possible explanation: LW clientele likes topics related to survival & life extension. Without turning this into a health discussion group I find these broad strokes of how to think about medical information very valuable.