Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pax27 t1_jdw6x0w wrote

Reply to comment by shogi_x in Linguistic analysis of 177,296 Reddit comments sheds light on negative attitudes toward science by HeinieKaboobler

Or how about the very common reaction "Well, everybody know that, why do the scientists even bother" or the classic "So how's that cure for cancer coming". There sure is a lot of trash comments on every science post. But then again, people are often just trying to get a few smiles, and a lot of times it can sound worse than it actually is. Maybe there can't be too much conclusions to draw from that type of behavior.

218

deaddonkey t1_jdx6vk1 wrote

I imagine this is mostly the result of being a front page sub

42

pax27 t1_jdx81d5 wrote

Very much so. I guess it's a reasonable trade off for wide spread coverage of science, even if some of it is just trendy nonsense or a cry for funding.

18

MINIMAN10001 t1_jdzjfe6 wrote

Given the quality I typically see coming from the default subs /r/science survives the plague of being a default sub a lot better than most do.

2

NewDad907 t1_jdxbnv7 wrote

Some of us are down rabbit holes and already know about the underlying foundational research, so a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a “new discovery” is eye-roll worthy.

It’s not what some new study says, it’s how it’s treated by others that I personally find annoying.

It’s sort of like how every other month NASA releases some “big news”….that amounts to yet more evidence of water on Mars. Can’t we just all agree there’s water on Mars. There was water, and there’s still water in places on Mars. Can’t that just be an openly accepted fact at this point?

−17

JaiOW2 t1_jdyice1 wrote

If it's already been studied it's not going to present anything as a new discovery, unless it found something in the same study / interaction that previous studies didn't, that's often why we perform that same study again, to deduce the consistency of the results, manipulate other variables or control more confounds, use tools or observatory measures we previously didn't have and to create a large sample. Wouldn't get past peer review doing the same thing that's been done 30 years ago and then claiming they made the novel discovery. It's never eye-roll worthy to see multiple studies performed on the same topic with roughly the same methodology, it's called replication and incredibly important for validity and consistency of the outcomes.

Sure, a journalist might pick up a new study and make some outlandish claim that it's discovered this new thing we've know for decades... but that's not the study doing it.

8

NewDad907 t1_jdyjqra wrote

I know, I literally said:

”It’s not what some new study says, it’s how it’s treated by others that I personally find annoying.“

−6

JaiOW2 t1_jdylr27 wrote

> so a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a “new discovery” is eye-roll worthy.

You also said this.

6

NewDad907 t1_jdyn98u wrote

Yes, “dressed up as a new discovery” by how it’s treated by other people.

What is up with Reddit the last week or so? It’s like half the user base’s reading comprehension has gone on vacation or something.

It’s either that, or people are just extra argumentative or something.

−7

JaiOW2 t1_jdyqjkg wrote

If you say a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a "new discovery" that sentence can be interpreted as you saying the new study is dressing up the discovery as something novel. I don't see why you needed to take a jab at my reading comprehension / character here, you could have just said, "I meant ... by this sentence not ..." and we'd be in agreement.

I read your comment as; first critiquing new studies trying to propose old discoveries as novel, and then going on to say you get annoyed at how the media or other people handle these studies and insert a lot of hyperbole.

I don't think this is an unfair interpretation, although if my reading comprehension has gone wrong somewhere, then explain where and how, because I evidently can't see where I've gone wrong (or I wouldn't have interpreted like so).

3