[bena]

You may be arguing from exception here. Yes, Willie Nelson is seemingly doing fine. But we don't know for sure how much he actually smokes. We have his claims.

But even giving him his self-reported claims, he is still a sample size of one.

Your mileage will vary.

Basically what you have done here is taken a piece of information, realized you don't like the results, and have found a way to rationalize continuing doing what you were doing anyway.

If you have ever complained about someone not believing in facts, not doing research, not trusting data, not trusting science, you have just put lie to your reasons for doing so. Because you are behaving just like them. Discarding information that makes you uncomfortable. And we can't do that.

[coldtea]

>Your mileage will vary.

Which makes an one-size-fits-all research less relevant as an absolute rule.

>If you have ever complained about someone not believing in facts, not doing research, not trusting data, not trusting science

Then you've done fine, as:

1) science is not some holy gospel given from god but a man-made endeavor (and prone to corruption, politics, error, careerism, and so on),

2) data can be manipulated or misread,

3) research can be bought, manipulated for grants, follow the wrong methodology, be unreproducible, and so on

4) facts themselves have no value unless you've seen them with your own eyes (and even then, you could be delusional or mistaken). With the term "fact" we denote something collected and reported by somebody that might be mistaken, told BS (e.g. how people self-report lies in studies and polls), distorted the actual bare facts for political reasons or private interests, and so on.

Not even peer review is some kind of holy process for the truth. All kinds of crap (even auto-generated) have passed peer review, academics prop each other up in little cliques all the time, tons of peer reviewed studies were found wrong and unreproducible, few "reviewers" take the time to reproduce or verify a study (to the point that studies quote the same old study for decades, and base their recommendations on it, and then it's found to be unsubstantiated BS), and meta-studies are more often than not very shallow.

If you trust science, you're not scientific and empirical enough.

Verify the crap out of everything you here, even if it's sold as "science".

[bena]

Science is the process, not the results.

And every "point" you've brought up is the same canard flat Earthers, young Earth creationists, and other sort of pseudo-science hack pushes.

asdf has discarded out of hand the study for the first reason he could find because he does not like the result. There are better reasons elsewhere in this very thread for being skeptical. But he didn't look those up. He didn't do one bit of leg work. He decided "Willie Nelson, Checkmate." What he's done is no better than what so many anti-intellectual hacks have done when arguing against things like evolution and the Earth not being flat.

So yes, I trust science, because I trust the process.

And it wasn't presented as a "one-size-fits-all" research. And regardless, if it was found that it was an average of 4 years, you're just saying "Yeah, well, I'm going to be one of the lucky ones".

[coldtea]

>Science is the process, not the results.

The scientific process is an abstract idea. Unless you believe in the reality of platonic ideas, the real world offers a much messier application of the scientific process.

Besides, I've already covered that.

>And every "point" you've brought up is the same canard flat Earthers, young Earth creationists, and other sort of pseudo-science hack pushes.

Which is neither a scientific argument, nor a relevant one. The fact that people who have wrong opinions on another matter (e.g. whether the earth if flat) also put forward this argument regarding science, does not mean it is false. You simply committed a logical fallacy.

In fact, I'm not even sure those people put forward this argument in any case. Young Earth creationists, for example, put forward other kinds of arguments (e.g. that the Bible knows better, which is not the same as "real science is a messy human process, never trust what its practitioners say just because it's labelled as science").

>He decided "Willie Nelson, Checkmate."

Well, it's a good counter-example. At the very least, it proves (given what we know about Nelson is true) that the findings in the research are not an absolute truth but it can vary for each person. Heck, those researches should also study Nelson and other lucid older heavy users, and learn what they can from them as well.

Besides, asdf never professed to put up a scientific argument. He just made a casual comment in an online forum. Notice how everything he said is totally rational and empirically verifiable:

"Article is light on details on what constitutes brain aging, but judging by 85 year old Willie Nelson's articulateness in his 2018 interviews, I hope to be aging my brain some day, as I get closer to retirement. Deep, gravelly, I don't give a fuck, voice. Zero hesitation, when he feels like expressing himself."

He doesn't even say that the article is wrong "because Willie": just that Willie Nelson is very articulate despite being a heavy user, and that he hopes to be as "brain aged" as he is, when he gets close to retirement.

>So yes, I trust science, because I trust the process.

Too bad. There's no pure process in the world. There are just people who are supposed to follow a process, and you need to not just trust the process, but also to trust the people that they will follow it properly.

(In fact even the concept of such a "process" is mumbo jumbo: there's no single well specified "scientific process", with a predetermined set of rules that every practitioner follows or is supposed to follow. It's an umbrella term referring to all kinds of practices, described in several different abstract ways by philosophers of science based on a set of high level steps). Even "peer review" is a relatively recent phenomenon, as is "publish or perish").

[bena]

The point "Sometime science is incomplete" doesn't say anything to any particular study. It doesn't address anything about the study itself. Saying "the data is wrong here" or "your statistical model is wrong in these ways" or "your sample size is too small" are tangible things and things worth bringing up. Saying "yeah, but science is wrong... sometimes" says nothing.

No one said the findings were absolute truth. It's a pointless thing to argue against. They said they found on average about 4 years of accelerated aging. You get averages from highs and lows. So a counter-example of one is irrelevant. Ok, put him in with the averages. Now the average is... about 4 years. His data point doesn't move the needle.

Sure the article is light on details, because it's a summary of a study. Not the study itself. But the point remains, he latched on to the first thing he could think of to dismiss the results. That's just bad process.

And I never said it has to be a "pure" process. If the only way you have of "making a point" is to stretch others' words to the point of absurdity, then you don't have a point. You are immediately assuming the worst possible interpretation of words rather than even a neutral one. The process is overall simple: perform, observe, record, interpret. If your findings are valid, if your methods are sound, and your tests repeatable, others will be able to duplicate your results. And I'm sure you're going to interpret that in the worst possible way. Because you have already an answer you want, you just need to fit the data to it.

Being skeptical, being open, also means being wrong sometimes. The idea is to consider new information and not just toss it aside because it conflicts with your personal preferences.