Even with a little educated guessing I think that groups like insurance entities in Russia will be able to use that data to make better risk assessments and save money. The point is that regardless that one thinks that some things are so obvious that they should not be investigated, what happens is that studies are not done to benefit the preconceptions of armchair scientists; but are made also to help industry and government to quantify an issue so resources can be used better.
BTW The OP reminded me of another recent disparaging of basic science.
The case of the Shrimp On A Treadmill.
I think that and many other examples shows how bubbles of information omit a lot of context and reinforce the idea that there is a lot of “useless” science being done.
Right. The study didn’t just show *that *vodka leads to early death…the study *quantified *the impact of vodka on life expectancy. Er, death expectancy. So now a life insurance company can figure out precisely *how much *to jack up the rates of heavy drinkers, or public health nurses can decide whether it’s more efficacious to focus on vodka or, say, use of chainsaws, when educating the public about health risks.
If I was in Congress, I would have been outrageg that they didn’t put flying fish on that treadmill. Or a clam with those little eyes glued on riding a seahorse in a bi-plane.
One of these studies someday will be: Cutting Taxes Does Not Increase Revenue. Half the people will think this is obvious, the other half will think it is the latest lie from the global conspiracy.
Heaven help me, I want to see that journal. Not just medical, though, I want it to be a general journal of studies proving the bleeding obvious. The only criteria are that the science has to be sound and the subject has to have not been proven previously and the reaction of an ordinary person reading it would be, “of course”.
Russian health authorities can use it to decide whether the problem is bad enough to justify addressing with tax money. Until a problem is quantified, City Hall can shrug and say it’s not as bad as all that.
As Simon Singh once said (though he may have gotten it from someone else): “Science is the fight against common sense”. Sure, the vast majority of studies looking at what seems to be obvious are probably going to confirm what we naturally think is true, but sometimes we discover that we were wrong, and that’s when things get really interesting.
Yes, you do. Without a properly designed study, you don’t know it. You just think it. And we think a whole hell of a lot of bullshit, it turns out.
It’s not about how long, it’s about how fast. If shrimp are being chased by a predator, the important thing is not whether the shrimp can outrun the predator, just whether it can outrun the shrimps next to it.
One could consider the infamous clinging shower curtain research. Seemed pretty ridiculous at the time, but all the better motels I have stayed in over the past six or seven years have made use of this research, those curved curtain rods eliminate the problem. Money well spent, I say.
Suppose they did a study and found out Russian men who drink vodka live LONGER?
That is why we have to do studies - to confirm what we think we already know, and learn from it if we’re actually wrong, because sometimes what we think we know is actually not true.
Also, many studies cover multiple things. The vodka study might have had lots of details about alcoholism that was new to science, but the reporter who wrote what you read about it just focused on the main part - possibly to mock it just like you are.
Cutting taxes can increase revenue sometimes. You just can’t know if it will until you try. If you are high enough on the Laffer Curve, though, you can be pretty sure of it.
When you think about it, the cocktail-napkin analysis is not a little paradoxical in context. Laffer was suggesting a way to increase government revenue at a time when the president’s favorite joke was “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Somehow, those two things fail to mesh.
According to the transcript, the photo of the cover listed additional stories: “Exercise Is Good”, “Medicine Can Help”, “Smoking Is Bad”, “Eat Right For Better Health”, and “Cancer Can Cause Death.”
Also, “A person who suffers two sharp, powerful blows to the head within a short period of time can suffer brain damage or even die. This according to a new study in the medical journal “DUH.””
And the effect may not be linear. Some studies have found that people who drink a moderate amount of alcohol have a lower chance of premature death than those who don’t drink any alcohol at all. So how much alcohol is OK? Is there a cut-off point? Maybe it’s no problem to drink up to a certain amount.
