Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bosdev 3809 days ago
The only fundamental difference between this and a 'proper' scientific experiment is the p value. All scientific experiments have cavets, and all have a probability their finding could be erroneous. Of course, no one should write a textbook based on this one guys self-reported experience. But, assuming he is accurately reporting it, it is evidence that this is _possible_ which is a very important thing to discover.

Yes, it may only be possible in 0.01% of the population, that is the type of thing which a larger-scale study can evaluate, but whatever they find, it will be an interesting result which would have been less likely if he hadn't shown it could be done.
2 comments
exelius 3809 days ago
A proper medical study also has doctors monitoring for any risks. They would run blood work and check for anything wrong - it's hard for one person to draw conclusions about how healthy this is if he wasn't baselining and monitoring different vital statistics (liver enzymes, etc.)

Also, everyone's body is different: he may just be a genetic freak who is able to do this. Especially with heath/body claims, be very wary that one person's results will be able to transfer to anyone else.

link
tacos 3809 days ago
Nonsense. A proper scientific experiment would have controls and independent results and medical oversight and calibrated measurement equipment and a clear definition of what's attempting to be proved.

This is a guy fooling around and blogging for attention. Dangerously so. p=1, no scientific method = anecdata. His conclusions? Pseudoscience. It's dangerous to him personally and it's damaging to society broadly to promote such without caveats. So I'm providing them.

link
bosdev 3809 days ago
He has gathered more data than had he not done it, or not blogged about it. You're right that it doesn't meet any scientific criteria for 'fact' yet, but it is data of a sort, and may be a helpful step on the road to the furtherance of science.
link
reality_czech 3808 days ago
Wow. I didn't realize "doing random stuff while taking no measurements, and then later writing about it" qualified as "the furtherance of science." A sample size of 1, combined with an attitude of ignorance and machismo, helps explain why "medical remedies" like bleeding people with leeches and giving them liquid mercury to drink endured for hundreds of years despite no actual evidence that they worked or were safe.

Reality check: nutritional deficits lead to cognitive deficits. The Atkins diet is known to lead to heart disease, which Atkins himself died from.

link