Today, we had our first class of "Critical Thinking: Exploring the Science behind the News". This is why our class matters.
We opened with this jaw-dropping example.
Without reading further: how did the researchers study this? What is the science behind the news?
1/
(corrected)
We opened with this jaw-dropping example.
Without reading further: how did the researchers study this? What is the science behind the news?
1/
(corrected)
Then we showed the study, which wasn't what the students expected.
It was a time-use diary study, about how people spent their time. The study did NOT investigate body weight. Not at all. No matter what the authors suggest in the conclusion of the abstract.
It was a time-use diary study, about how people spent their time. The study did NOT investigate body weight. Not at all. No matter what the authors suggest in the conclusion of the abstract.
"Obesity may be due to decreases in physical activity ALONE" the authors wrote. Lack of physical activity is the problem. The word 'diet' only appeared in the references.
Guess who likely loves that conclusion to be true?
The sponsors of the study.
The sponsors of the study.
The life of a poor paper could and should stop there. A few weeks in the news. Published and never cited.
But this one lives on. Cited 165 times and counting.
But this one lives on. Cited 165 times and counting.
Including recently, in a prevention review, written for the American College of Cardiology.
The study was cited for showing the relationship between physical activity and excess weight gain (which it didn't show).
Keep thinking! Stay skeptical.
/end
The study was cited for showing the relationship between physical activity and excess weight gain (which it didn't show).
Keep thinking! Stay skeptical.
/end
