JaiOW2 t1_jdyice1 wrote on March 28, 2023 at 2:51 AM

Reply to comment by NewDad907 in Linguistic analysis of 177,296 Reddit comments sheds light on negative attitudes toward science by HeinieKaboobler

If it's already been studied it's not going to present anything as a new discovery, unless it found something in the same study / interaction that previous studies didn't, that's often why we perform that same study again, to deduce the consistency of the results, manipulate other variables or control more confounds, use tools or observatory measures we previously didn't have and to create a large sample. Wouldn't get past peer review doing the same thing that's been done 30 years ago and then claiming they made the novel discovery. It's never eye-roll worthy to see multiple studies performed on the same topic with roughly the same methodology, it's called replication and incredibly important for validity and consistency of the outcomes.

Sure, a journalist might pick up a new study and make some outlandish claim that it's discovered this new thing we've know for decades... but that's not the study doing it.

NewDad907 t1_jdyjqra wrote on March 28, 2023 at 3:02 AM

I know, I literally said:

”It’s not what some new study says, it’s how it’s treated by others that I personally find annoying.“

JaiOW2 t1_jdylr27 wrote on March 28, 2023 at 3:19 AM

> so a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a “new discovery” is eye-roll worthy.

You also said this.

NewDad907 t1_jdyn98u wrote on March 28, 2023 at 3:32 AM

Yes, “dressed up as a new discovery” by how it’s treated by other people.

What is up with Reddit the last week or so? It’s like half the user base’s reading comprehension has gone on vacation or something.

It’s either that, or people are just extra argumentative or something.

JaiOW2 t1_jdyqjkg wrote on March 28, 2023 at 4:02 AM

If you say a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a "new discovery" that sentence can be interpreted as you saying the new study is dressing up the discovery as something novel. I don't see why you needed to take a jab at my reading comprehension / character here, you could have just said, "I meant ... by this sentence not ..." and we'd be in agreement.

I read your comment as; first critiquing new studies trying to propose old discoveries as novel, and then going on to say you get annoyed at how the media or other people handle these studies and insert a lot of hyperbole.

I don't think this is an unfair interpretation, although if my reading comprehension has gone wrong somewhere, then explain where and how, because I evidently can't see where I've gone wrong (or I wouldn't have interpreted like so).