510
Alcohol is the root of 62 diseases and a partial cause of dozens more
(hsph.harvard.edu)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2026
510 points (100.0% liked)
science
27636 readers
151 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The more you write about science, statistics, and causality, the more obvious it becomes that your confidence is doing the heavy lifting where methodological understanding should be.
It has to be discouraging for you to know that you don't know what you're talking about while continuing to double down, to know that you didn't read the study and that you're responding to a post title with a gut feeling, to know that all of your "arguments" amount to, "nuh uh, you're illogical and wrong so I won't even try to make a single reasoned point" while being completely unwilling and unable to address actual points because you can't, to know that the likelihood that your gut feeling is actually correct despite the conclusion of a robust study is pretty tiny, and to know that it all played out in a public forum.
I know that last part is ironically what drives you to be rude and condescending when it only hurts your credibility as a thoughtful person. Your fragile ego was challenged and you got mad and attacked the person instead of the idea, hoping no one noticed that saying, "oh man, you don't know anything" would move the spotlight off of you, who happens to carry all the burden to prove that the study is "silly," as you put it. And you know that's true, too, and I bet its transparency doesn't help that ego of yours.
Discouraging is only that there are still people like you around who think they have a clue, while after just a few comments it becomes obvious that they know very little about the subject they are talking about. Mentioning Occam's Razor, a basic concept, which you even managed to misinterpret, was clear evidence of that. Even worse, instead of engaging in a technical discussion like someone genuinely interested in science would do, you increasingly turned the conversation into amateur psychoanalysis about my ego. That told me everything I needed to know. You are free to continue writing comments, but I won't be answering them. If you consider that a win, that's entirely up to you.