[LatteLazy]

We need to stop doing these pointless studies. Everything is linked to everything, showing it is is a waste of money because (1) we already know and (2) we can't use this info because we don't know what causes what. But people would rather click on these pieces and feel good having their assumptions confirmed that learn and actually improve our society.

[Swenrekcah]

People do these studies so that you can then use it to actually improve society by, let's say increase and improve our green spaces. When someone asks you why you're wasting time and money on a silly childish thing like a greener city instead of more asphalt for Business Inc. you can point to this study.

[jprete]

Doing crap studies to argue from the authority of science has gradually eroded that authority.

I don’t know that this study is crap, but it fits the pattern on the surface: “Correlate politically valuable thing A with biomarker B, observe that B is correlated with universally valued C, totally ignore statistics to infer that A causes C”.

I say this as someone who actively believes it’s healthier to live in or near green spaces!

[Swenrekcah]

Sure, but the problem with crap scientific studies is not studies or science, it's the crap.

Allowing lazy content pushers to 'report' on studies without understanding any of it is much more of a problem than any study, however flawed.

That and unscrupulous politicians and megacorps is what has eroded the trust in our society, not only of science but almost anything.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

Most of the time, people are pretty good at knowing what they want.

Everyone seems to want the city completely paved over in roads and parking and places to shop and eat and do as much for as cheap as humanly possible.

There's a small number of people who want greenspace and acknowledge it comes at a cost, and they seek it out.

Everyone else seeks out more cheap appliances and clothes and gasoline.

[Swenrekcah]

By this logic we must conclude that only a tiny portion of people actually want to live in beachfront properties and take a few months off to travel every year.

Everyone else seeks out cheaper apartments and 9-5 jobs with two weeks vacation.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

You could.

There's plenty of beachfront places in other countries American families could easily afford and retire and yet chose to work to live in dumpy apartments in Manhattan instead.

It only works if it's within your financial means.

We can't all assume everyone doesn't want a $200M house in the hills with a megayacht and a full staff because they don't have it. They don't have the means.

But if you have the means and chose something else, it's not because you're dumb and society is evil and tricking you. It's because that's what you want.

[Swenrekcah]

The actions people take are generally not a product of careful deliberation and certainly not always genuine reflections of their deepest desires.

Most of the time, people just do things without thinking too much about it and they do the things that are the "default mode" operations in the context in which they are operating.

It is not wise to look at actions people take and conclude that's what they really wanted to do. At the very least you'd need to ask them about it.

There may be 100 reasons why they feel tied to a spot where they actually don't want so much to live in. So let's try to really and truly improve the cities, make them walkable with green and blue spaces, easy public transport out to larger parks and reserves, etc.

[cempaka]

Yeah just retire somewhere where you don't speak the language, have minimal-to-zero connection to local culture, and will be thousands of miles from children, family, and friends. Simple!

[onlyrealcuzzo]

So obviously they care about those things more than nature, just like they care about driving their car all over the city more than spending money on greenspace.

Everyone has choices. The society we've made is the sum of our choices. You don't freely chose to do things you don't want to (given your available options).

[LatteLazy]

But we already know green spaces are nice.

And this study does not prove anything about them being good for people.

Maybe instead of X USD on this study we should have spent that money on an actual green space somewhere...

[ethanbond]

It does in fact increase our evidence that they’re actually good for people beyond being mere perks that some people enjoy.

[LatteLazy]

No, It doesn't. Because it does not show causation. We either prove causation or it's worthless.

[10g1k]

Not at all. That's not how science works. A huge percentage of rigorous scientific studies are specifically showing correlations between things.

"Correlation doesn't equal causation!" cried the internerds.

It doesn't need to. If you've got a set (P) of N people who consume substance X, and N people (Q) who did not consume substance X, and 100% of set P died within half an hour of that act, and 100% of Q are still happy little dandelions, that is an entirely valid scientific finding, and an entirely sufficient reason to stop the supply of substance X.

[ethanbond]

That’s how science works bud. Correlation is really all we ever have for anything and you don’t leap from “no data” to “confident in causation” without miles and miles of “just correlative evidence of varying quality.”

And of course even once you get to high enough conviction to call it causation, it’s still liable to be overturned and to reveal itself as a mere correlation nonetheless!

Humans have never once “proved causation” of even a single phenomenon ever.

[CalRobert]

Not everyone agrees. Land is a scarce asset and plenty of people would rather have something else, like parking.

[LatteLazy]

So you will need to do REAL research to convince them. Which this isnt...

[xiphias2]

You're right, it's basically air pollution. We know that air pollution makes people older and kills millions every year, although the exact mechanism is not known (I have lots of health problems because of it, but no good test to show it except bad sleep patterns at places with high air pollution).

We also know the solutions: electric cars (I just bought my first), heat pumps with electric heating, and reversing aging.

[mrpopo]

Electric cars are not a solution (most of the particles come from the brakes, tyres and too many roads instead of vegetation, which blocks wind dust and erosion).

Heat pumps or electric heating help solve climate change, not air pollution (it helps a bit if it replaces an old wood stove, but would make things worse if the grid is coal-powered, which is sadly still common).

Reversing aging isn't a thing and even if it were, it wouldn't be a solution to anything. Air pollution problems aren't only about physical health but mental health and biodiversity as well. Maybe I don't get the sarcasm.

[CalRobert]

Electric cars make it more difficult for other people to adopt low-pollution lifestyles by making the streets more dangerous for those walking or biking, and produce a lot of particulates from the tyres, especially since they're quite heavy.

An electric bike, though, is a pretty great choice!

[xorfish]

Cars are generally not a mode of transport that makes sense in a city. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority of transportation in a city should be by foot, bicycle or public transport.

[dontlaugh]

Cars are a big part of the problem, regardless of energy source.

Trains, trams, buses, bikes, walking, etc. are the actual solution.

[globular-toast]

Electric cars are still part of the problem, not the solution. They still cause particulate pollution due to brake and tyre dust plus wear on the roads due to excessive weight. And that's not to mention the noise pollution, stress and danger caused by cars.

Bicycles are the solution to that particular problem.

[vharuck]

I've been repeating this in my work with statewide health data. The answer to, "Is there a difference in X between group Y and group Z?" is always "Yes." No data collection or significance test needed. If you want to know if being Y or Z affects X, you need a properly controlled experiment.

Studies using observational and non-comprehensive data collection have their place. They show reality. If people in one city have an incredibly high rate of dying from heart disease, that means we could reduce premature deaths there. And we'd do that by looking at the results of controlled studies into the causes of heart disease, then see which ones are prevalent and changeable.

[schrectacular]

You might enjoy this conversation, which goes into why we get so many papers like this:

https://www.econtalk.org/adam-mastroianni-on-peer-review-and...

TLDR; the incentives are all aligned for researchers to do very narrow, marginal work.