Hacker News Reader

Comment by implmntatio | Hacker News Reader

how often did you get sick? weight? what season did you do it in?

what was your goal in the first place?

> you’d get extremely strong results from scientific studies

check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional.

science is cool, scientists are just regular ol' people and enough regular ol' people do a lot to look good, to not be unemployed and having to write applications again, to get their tap on the head and or a nice bonus. **regular in their little slices under the bell curve

View on HN

> check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional.

That tells you about those countries but very little about cold exposure specifically. One inherent difference is they lack a lot of tropical diseases because they aren’t in the tropics. You could still try and remove all those differences, but directly studying cold exposure itself is vastly more practical.

It's strange to question the work of scientists in this way. Precisely because they are only human the studies are peer reviewed and the meta studies have the most explanatory value and weight.

Unless you are assuming there is some global conspiracy of scientists to have jobs the system it selfs manages it by it's transparency.

Simplifying it in a "check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional" way is exactly the wrong approach. How do you know what kind of diet, genome and culture they have? There are so many variables that the mere fact of whether one diverse group does something different than another doesn't really say anything. It's so difficult to try to isolate individual problems. That's why we have the scientists.

Don’t both things have value, when measured on different axes?

I think it’s just a bit more gray.

You haven't heard of the replication crisis?

Not till now. Thanks. But as weird as it can sounds. The failing and iterationg over and over is integral part of science. Which includes method itself.

The "method" was never fixed. It was identified but we have no way of correcting it. A ton of science is still completely dubious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com