Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by Cheshire, Oct 24, 2017.
That just might be a candidate for a link in our reference library in due course. It very clearly and lucidly illustrates the dangers of conflating critical scientific debate with bullying behaviour.
Well when I was in research we used to say there's no such thing as a wrong result. That was a long time ago now though.
Unfortunately this statement about bullying would offer no defence against criticism of those we normally criticise.
To me a wrong result is where the research provides very little information where as a positive or negative result provides information. So I would say things like PACE and Smile are wrong results because the methodology is too poor to make conclusions.
I was going to say its quite rare but I see something else which is common that is people simply asking a question that is not useful to answer.
Let me clarify .... When I was a biochemist and a researcher working on the bench designing experiments, securing funding, publishing results etc I worked in a lab with others doing the same .... we would often commiserate with one another when our latest experiment gave a confusing or negative result with the phrase "there is no such thing as a wrong/bad/negative result". This was more said as an encouragement than anything else because you knew if your results were not going to prove your theory there was a high chance your sponsor may give the funding to somone else when it came round to extending the research...and it meant more work trying to redesign your methodology and doing the whole thing again
It was a throwaway comment...so sorry to cause such consternation on word semantics
I think it would in many cases actually. Much of the criticism aimed at the dodgy science undertaken by some people, is conflated (often deliberately) as being personal attacks on the scientists, as a way of deflecting / misdirecting the criticism away from the science, making it look like the criticism is immoral and unfounded; in fact it is highly moral and totally founded.
I was trying to make the point that they are not, and should not be considered to be, scientists.
Sorry, I missed that subtlety.
I'm sorry too. Sometimes my responses look much more curt and hostile than they are intended to be. I think this was such an occasion. Brevity is not always for the best.
Separate names with a comma.