The PLOS Blogs network from the open-access Public Library of Science covers research, neuroscience, science communication and open data.
HN links it for science outreach and neuroscience posts, such as an fMRI interview, and as an example of a profitable open access publisher.
There's kind of a lot of issues. Especially with psychology and sociology and the areas they intersect.
1. Replicability of social psychology results are estimated at 25%. (Cited in article, from http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248)
2. People are not reporting non-significant results. Which means we get an incomplete picture of the validity of certain hypotheses. (from article)
3. The numbers don't line up when comparing observed power and significance of results. (from article)
4. Some results data is erroneous or falsified. The GRIM test that surfaced a while back shows numeric "results" that cannot possibly be derived from the sample data. (https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-grim-test-a-method-for-evaluating-published-research-9a4e5f05e870) (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/9/30/13077658/statcheck-psychology-replication)
5. Many authors on the papers don't want to share the data from their papers - even if it's a condition of publication. (from a previous article about the GRIM test that I can't find) This doesn't directly equate to maliciousness or deceit, but it illustrates incorrect attitudes in the field. Some authors consider it undignified to have someone "check their work". Others are concerned of fallout if their data contains errors. (Generic mainstream blog/press article on reproducibility https://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11219446/psychology-replication-crisis)
6. Ridiculously small sample…
>>were probably a big reason why Spain so quickly supplanted the Aztecs.
Maybe, maybe not. It didn't hurt that the Spaniards had powerful biological weapons on their side that decimated [1] the Aztec population. Same as what happened here in the United States with the native population. Had it been the natives spreading new infectious diseases to the arriving europeans, history would probably have been quite different.
Imagine going to a new land and upon contact with the natives a sizable portion of your people always dies off while the natives stay healthy and at full fighting strength. And even the ones that do not die off still get so sick that it completely incapacitates them for some time and hence unable to fight. They'd be very vulnerable to native attacks.
The news would spread like wild fire in Europe that everybody that travels to the new world dies because of sorcery or what not. Yep, history could have turned out very differently indeed.
[1]http://blogs.plos.org/publichealth/2013/07/30/guest-post-what-killed-the-aztecs/
This is the relevant part:
>>When Hernando Cortes and his army conquered Mexico starting in 1519, there were roughly about 25 million people living in what is now Mexico. A hundred years later, after a series of epidemics decimated the local population, perhaps as few as 1.2 million natives survived. Records confirm there was a smallpox epidemic in 1519 and 1520, immediately after the Europeans arrived, killing between 5 and 8 million…
I think there are other statistical methods that would take account of sample size in different ways -- perhaps saying in some cases "you don't have enough data to determine validity yet". Among other things that different tests would reveal. p-value is not the only way to analyze your results statistically.
p-values say a certain thing, and are not appropriate to be used as the single universal statistical test for validity, and may likely not even be the best 'default' choice.
I think the message here is indeed that statistical verification/validation is _hard_, and requires actual statistical expertise to know what the tests you are applying mean (and what the assumed pre-requisites of the test are) and apply the right ones. The current practice of "p-value and only p-value, always" is flawed.
(But it's also because the influences of current scientific/academic practice are to motivate people to find the _quickest and cheapest way to get published_, rather than to give yourself additional barriers to publication in pursuit of truth!)
There has been a lot of writing about this in more formal and less cutesy settlers-example ways, this is not an original observation to this blog post. It's in fact been a growing concern, including leading to a recent statement of caution on over- and mis-use of p-values by the American Statistical…
70 Calories of chocolate is about 11-12g of (70-85%) dark chocolate, or 12-13g of Milk Chocolate(1). Chocolate's LD50 is approximately 1000g/Kg(2). So basically your body weight in chocolate. It's the theobromine that kills you, same as dogs, but they're much more sensitive to it. And it strongly depends on the kind of chocolate, pure cocoa is much higher in theobromine than milk chocolate: So 5 oz of Cocoa powder ~= 8.6 oz of Baking chocolate ~= 26 oz of Semi-sweet ~= 27oz of dark chocolate ~= 59 oz of Milk Chocolate ~= 3583 oz of White chocolate.(3) (White chocolate has no cocoa powder in it, just cocoa butter.) Note that these comparisons are of just the theobromine content, not the the 'healthy' stuff in chocolate.
I have personally tested this back when my metabolism was young by eating 2 pounds of Hershey's Kisses in one evening with no ill effects. :)
I don't think we know that much about flavonols, quercetin is the most studied and most of the studies used a 1000 mg/day dose, but I don't find any info about a most effective or maximum dosage.(4)
The reason to eat chocolate is cause it tastes fucking awesome. If you're trying to eat it for your health I feel sad for you. …
Calorie balance certainly matters but it is not that simple. Most leading health research institutions believe dietary quality plays a major part in health and weight management. Certain foods are associated with patterns of overeating.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/best-diet-quality-counts/
The average American diet has changed dramatically in the last century with the growth of the restaurant and food processing industry. Exercise participation has actually increased substantially in the last 20 years (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2015/057.pdf) in the same time period obesity has soared.
Energy balance being responsible for weight gain is too readily used by the food processing industry in an effort to shift away blame for this epidemic.
A few instances:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/obesity-exercise-energy-balance
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/good-news-pepsicos-indra-nooyi-solves-the-obesity-crisis/
http://blogs.plos.org/speakingofmedicine/2012/07/05/is-obesity-simply-about-a-lack-of-balance-why-big-food-wants-you-to-be-fit/
https://therussells.crossfit.com/2015/09/23/transparency-coca-cola-reveals-acsm-payments-hides-others/
Looks like a candidate for a fecal transplant:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/clinical-updates/digestive-diseases/quick-inexpensive-90-percent-cure-rate
Most facilities do it the fancy way (use a tube down the nose or up the rear), run tests and, as usual, charge you and your donor out the a! But I've read of DIY'ers who simply spun out the solids, held their nose and swilled the goods(I suppose a real man would use a spoon) or took them in an enema:
http://blogs.plos.org/publichealth/2013/05/29/why-diy-fecal-transplants-are-a-thing-and-the-fda-is-only-part-of-the-reason/
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27503660
Either way it works.
"Compatible" donor? Healthy family member(s).
As the author of the article notes, probiotics can't possibly match the variety of organisms that a typical human has in their gut.
Business proposal: a repository where people deposit feces prior to taking strong antibiotics, so that, should they find themselves consequently absent intestinal flora and fauna, those could easily be restored. Kind of a new twist on the old curse "Eat shit and die!"