You’re just trying to be antagonistic now. It’s the data sets. He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. It’s not that hard to comprehend. What decreases issues, what increase years a live on this planet.
Why would you attack someone who’s trying to help find what helps people live longer?
"He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. "
How?
How would we know his longevity has increased and not decreased?
How would we know which of the myriad of variables, or which combination of variables,
was responsible for the increase (or decrease)?
Not following the scientific method, won’t produce useful data. As someone said, anecdotes.
Here’s the deal: those markers are proxies for health. But there have been numerous cases (Alzheimers research is particularly full of them, but it’s widespread in many biological systems) where changing the proxy marker does nothing to change the underlying condition. Causality doesn’t work like that. You think it’s A causes B, but in fact it’s Z causes A by one causal chain, and Z causes B by (potentially) another. So there’s your guy’s first fallacy.
The second is to conduct multiple trials in parallel on the same subject. Then, even if a change in the proxy variable actually means a change in health, you have no reliable way to untangle which factor or combination of factors was responsible for the change.
Third, a sample size of 1 or 2 is fucking stupid. It makes it impossible to tell if any measurements collected are releveant, or even repeatable. It also makes it impossible to tell if any fluctuation was random or actually caused by something you are trying to measure. And if you’re trying to measure an actual effect, you need a control group to compare it against. He has none.
Source: I was educated as a statistician and my focus was on experimental design in bio-science and pharma.
So, even assuming good will on this guy’s part, he’s a hobbyist doing junk science. If he really cared about helping humankind, he should have asked someone who knows how to do experiments to advise him on how to set up his protocols.
No, you don’t understand science.
“But worthless data is still data!”
You’re just trying to be antagonistic now. It’s the data sets. He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. It’s not that hard to comprehend. What decreases issues, what increase years a live on this planet.
Why would you attack someone who’s trying to help find what helps people live longer?
Can’t do that with a sample size of one, because there isn’t a comparison to know if it is longer or not.
"He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. " How?
How would we know his longevity has increased and not decreased? How would we know which of the myriad of variables, or which combination of variables, was responsible for the increase (or decrease)? Not following the scientific method, won’t produce useful data. As someone said, anecdotes.
By taking readings and measurements of the human body. Seeing if your in an increased healthy state.
There are markers which shows the health of the body.
Here’s the deal: those markers are proxies for health. But there have been numerous cases (Alzheimers research is particularly full of them, but it’s widespread in many biological systems) where changing the proxy marker does nothing to change the underlying condition. Causality doesn’t work like that. You think it’s A causes B, but in fact it’s Z causes A by one causal chain, and Z causes B by (potentially) another. So there’s your guy’s first fallacy.
The second is to conduct multiple trials in parallel on the same subject. Then, even if a change in the proxy variable actually means a change in health, you have no reliable way to untangle which factor or combination of factors was responsible for the change.
Third, a sample size of 1 or 2 is fucking stupid. It makes it impossible to tell if any measurements collected are releveant, or even repeatable. It also makes it impossible to tell if any fluctuation was random or actually caused by something you are trying to measure. And if you’re trying to measure an actual effect, you need a control group to compare it against. He has none.
Source: I was educated as a statistician and my focus was on experimental design in bio-science and pharma.
So, even assuming good will on this guy’s part, he’s a hobbyist doing junk science. If he really cared about helping humankind, he should have asked someone who knows how to do experiments to advise him on how to set up his protocols.