We talked last year too. Paper sent to us by Matt Bogard. The paper was published in the British Medical Journal under the title „The Effects of Cold Exposure on Life Satisfaction and Body Composition in Soldiers,'' but Bogarde was highly skeptical of the paper. At the time he said:
I don't have full access to this article to know the full details, and I don't seem to have access to the data link, but since n = 49 were split into treatment and control groups for these outcomes ( (I also do gender subgroup comparisons), this seems to scream, anything that doesn't lose my statistical significance only makes it stronger.
I read it too and agreed that the article was absolutely awful.I think it was better than most of what is published in International Supply Chain Technology Journal, but that doesn't make much sense. In fact, all this paper has to say is that it has pieced together several coherent sentences.
Even though this paper is clearly very bad, it was promoted by a professor at Stanford Medical School who has a side job promoting this kind of thing.
what happened? ? Stanford is supposed to be a serious university, right? I hate to see Stanford School of Medicine mixed up in this kind of thing.
news!
That article has been withdrawn:
The reasons for the withdrawal are strangely specific. I think it's enough to say it's no good and I'm retracting it. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz says:
In summary, this is a completely worthless study and has no scientific value. It's quite surprising that it was published in its current form, and even more surprising that someone would try to use it as evidence.
Even without the specific concerns that led to the retraction, I agree that this study is worthless.
On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised that it was published, and I'm not surprised that someone would try to use it as evidence.nonsense research gets published everytimeand they are always used as evidence as well.
By the way, if you're interested and would like to see the original paper, here it is:
You still have to pay $50.
Will that guy at Stanford University announce a retraction of the evidence that promoted his claim that „deliberate exposure to cold is a great exercise for the mind''? I doubt it, but if the quality of the evidence mattered, he wouldn't have cited that study in the first place, but who knows. I think anything can happen.
P.S. At this point, some may complain about how critical we all are. Why can't we just leave these people alone? My usual answer is that (a) junk science is a waste of valuable resources and attention, and (b) bad science drives out good science. Somewhere there is a researcher who is polite and does a good job, but was not hired by Stanford University School of Medicine because he was not flashy enough. Just as there are Ph.D. Psychology students whose research is not published in Psychological Science are: Lucky golf ball research.
role of paul alper To tella horse is never actually dead, so you always have to put down a dead horse.