Health Nerd Profile picture
7 Mar, 9 tweets, 2 min read
This is just a confusion in terms:

"Science" = process by which humans examine the universe

"Facts" = truths about the universe that cannot be altered

Science is by definition constructed. Facts are not
My first degree was a double major in psychology and the philosophy of science, and I love this stuff. The idea that science is some fixed system breaks down remarkably easy
One brilliant exercise - take a list of fields and classify them into science, pseudoscience, and not science

This is usually fairly easy!

Now, try and describe ~why~ things fall into the categories they do

MUCH harder
Many scientific disciplines were created by charlatans and used for purposes that we would now describe as pseudoscientific. In the 1800s, some pseudoscientific areas were more on the ball than "traditional" medicine
And large parts of what we now mark as the imprimatur of "science" - white coats, labs, PhDs - are more historical than they are an essential part of the process
Then we have the areas that use what we'd usually consider as the "scientific method" - sociology, anthropology - but lack the certainty that physics gives us. They don't fit the classical mold of "science", but they do still do things scientifically
Anyway, the second you actually start to try and define the rules that govern why some things are considered science and others are not, you realize that a lot of it is pretty arbitrary
When Dawkins says that "science" is not socially constructed, what he means is that there are objectively true facts and that these are immutable, but the reality is that our system for discovering those facts cannot ever be without some construction
Yes, he partially clarified this, but the important point is not about whether there is or isn't an objective reality, but whether our system for examining that reality is objective

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Health Nerd

Health Nerd Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GidMK

9 Mar
@VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom My favorite part of this is that we can actually do a fairly basic empirical test of whether the idea that twitter royalty is required to be a FB fact-checker is true, or whether it's simply a correlation due to pandemic expertise by looking at pre-pandemic follower counts
@VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom Of the people quoted for the healthfeedback piece, the median number of twitter followers was 4,514, with two people having well below 1,000 prior to COVID-19. The mean is skewed up to 35k by Topol
@VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom The mean/median increase in followers for these 6 accounts is 3,100/1,500%, with @angie_rasmussen and @BillHanage both having a >50x increase in their follower counts since 2019 according to wayback.org
Read 4 tweets
9 Mar
Recently this paper was published purporting to show that staying at home does not prevent COVID-19 deaths

I don't think the evidence provided supports that at all!

Some peer-review on twitter 1/n
2/n Paper is here, it's a pretty simple ecological study comparing countries on their deaths/million from COVID-19 and Google mobility data nature.com/articles/s4159…
3/n The authors modelled the impact of time spent in "residential" areas as shown by Google against number of COVID-19 deaths in different areas, and in most cases found that there was no significant explanatory power for this model
Read 22 tweets
8 Mar
It was always predictable that COVID-19 denialism would morph into anti-vaccine advocacy because it was never about public health, it was always about attacking government measures
The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by an organisation that promotes tobacco smoking, denies global warming, and lies about asbestos. There's a reason no serious public health scientists signed it!
If your entire philosophy is predicated on reactionary outrage over any government intervention it's pretty much a given that you'd move on to being anti-vaccine when safe+effective vaccines came out for COVID
Read 4 tweets
5 Mar
A fascinating paper on COVID-19 death underreporting in Zambia. Of 364 people tested after death:

- 6 officially recorded as a COVID-19 death
- 70 tested positive to COVID-19 on PCR

Implies ~90%(!) underreporting of COVID-19 burden

bmj.com/content/372/bm…
In patients where a clinical cause was able to be identified, the vast majority of cases were clearly deaths caused by COVID-19, which means that this is likely a true undercount of the deaths
Worryingly, only 1 in 7 of the children who died of COVID-19 had been tested for it beforehand
Read 7 tweets
4 Mar
The first large, well-done RCT on ivermectin for mild COVID-19 has been published, and has found no benefit for the drug

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
Also, this was a beautiful thing to see while reading the study. "We made a mistake at the start so we fixed it but here's all the data so you can tell for yourself" is absolutely the right thing to do when reporting on your trial outcomes!
I suspect when I do a formal risk of bias score for the study it will come out looking fantastic simply from this one thing. Researchers who are entirely open about their methods are the ones who publish the best studies!
Read 5 tweets
3 Mar
The largest/only RCT of microdosing psilocybin (shrooms) for mental health has just come out, and it found no benefit

It is also one of the most methodologically beautiful pieces of research I have ever seen. Amazing innovation

elifesciences.org/articles/62878…
Doing research on shrooms is hard, because they're mostly illegal and there are a lot of restrictions in most places

Much of the research is simply observational, asking people who already take shrooms what they think of the experience
So what did the researchers do?

They asked people who were already going to microdose shrooms to BLIND AND RANDOMIZE THEMSELVES

Super cool idea, and impressively sound methodology ImageImage
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!