You Want to See My Data? I Thought We Were Friends
I don&#x27;t know if the comic properly represents the book, but all of the suggestions are somewhere between ridiculous and useless.<p>First, about identifying bad research: The &quot;extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence&quot; is already practiced. It&#x27;s not that &quot;we&#x27;ve overturned quantum theory&quot; articles that are causing problem - those are quickly and effectively shot down. And it is rare that the &quot;perfectly aligns with a political interest&quot; can be applied. The only actionable one is &quot;see what others think about it&quot;, and it&#x27;s no panacea either.<p>Bad and fraudulent science like the recently retracted Surgisphere covid paper is abundant. I was trying to track down the origin of the &quot;reduce salt intake&quot; and &quot;limit egg consumption to no more than 2 per day &#x2F; 2 per week&quot; recommendation in the past, assuming there was hard science behind them. There isn&#x27;t; and indeed they&#x27;re slowly being reversed everywhere - but they were prevalent for half a century, with a lot of other research taking them as axioms.<p>The remdesivir trials have been p-hacked to death - anyone who took an interest was seeing it happen in real time - yet, the scientific community turns a blind eye.<p>The ketogenic diet is vilified in every mainstream media and most nutritional &quot;science&quot; publications; the headlines are rarely inline with the the actual results, but that&#x27;s what people remember (Not that nutrition science is really science)<p>And the other recommendations about fixing it are comparable to &quot;lets solve evils of the US 2-party system! All we have to do is make those two parties vote to take away their power&quot;. Academia and science publishing are where they are now because it benefits essentially all the incumbents (at the expense of the rest of society).<p>The problem description (at least in the comic) is good. Any suggested action ... not so much.