Interesting Paul—though I sometimes wonder if there’s value in anyone ever reporting anything that doesn’t prove cause and effect? Not said critically; maybe there *is* value in reporting observational, self-reported studies?
Scott, thanks for voicing this. It's def a worthy question. Scientists may have a better answer than me, but I'd say there is value in reporting research that doesn't prove cause/effect. Observational studies like this instant/filtered coffee paper don't prove cause, but they're often the only ethical or practical way to study how real people live over decades (since you can't, eg, randomly assign 50,000 people to drink instant coffee for 20 years). I believe their value is seen in identifying patterns and, if many independent studies with slightly different angles or proof points end up pointing the same way, building a case toward causality. So the value is real, as long as the research (and the media coverage) accurately report what the study can and can't show—which is why in this case, I flagged the filtered result as more reliable than the instant one. That said, I hear you about how "correlation - causation = frustration." I appreciate you making the point.
Great response Paul—thanks! And I agree: often studies like this serve as “hypothesis generation machines” (which is basically the same point you made!). And I think the fact that you called out the caveats to this study clearly makes your reporting something to model. 👍 (And the sad truth is, some people will still always run with your post, reposting it under a title like “Filtered coffee makes you look younger!”)
Scott, you’re certainly a close reader, which I so appreciate. In fact, I posted a Substack Note about this post saying that instant coffee “might make you look older"….intentionally pushing the boundary of what my underlying article shows to be a weak link. But hopefully the humor in the Note leavens that boundary pushing.
Not sure what your point is Ashley Y? I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say...but if your point is "Nobody but an expert on the topic should be allowed to evaluate or criticize something," I guess I'd reply "Good luck with that!" I certainly know my limits (and don't think Paul is infallible)...but we've also seen countless examples of "experts" being wrong (or having bias and agendas they don't often communicate), so I'm not sure it's accurate to suggest only experts are qualified to evaluate?
Interesting Paul—though I sometimes wonder if there’s value in anyone ever reporting anything that doesn’t prove cause and effect? Not said critically; maybe there *is* value in reporting observational, self-reported studies?
Scott, thanks for voicing this. It's def a worthy question. Scientists may have a better answer than me, but I'd say there is value in reporting research that doesn't prove cause/effect. Observational studies like this instant/filtered coffee paper don't prove cause, but they're often the only ethical or practical way to study how real people live over decades (since you can't, eg, randomly assign 50,000 people to drink instant coffee for 20 years). I believe their value is seen in identifying patterns and, if many independent studies with slightly different angles or proof points end up pointing the same way, building a case toward causality. So the value is real, as long as the research (and the media coverage) accurately report what the study can and can't show—which is why in this case, I flagged the filtered result as more reliable than the instant one. That said, I hear you about how "correlation - causation = frustration." I appreciate you making the point.
Great response Paul—thanks! And I agree: often studies like this serve as “hypothesis generation machines” (which is basically the same point you made!). And I think the fact that you called out the caveats to this study clearly makes your reporting something to model. 👍 (And the sad truth is, some people will still always run with your post, reposting it under a title like “Filtered coffee makes you look younger!”)
Scott, you’re certainly a close reader, which I so appreciate. In fact, I posted a Substack Note about this post saying that instant coffee “might make you look older"….intentionally pushing the boundary of what my underlying article shows to be a weak link. But hopefully the humor in the Note leavens that boundary pushing.
Not sure what your point is Ashley Y? I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say...but if your point is "Nobody but an expert on the topic should be allowed to evaluate or criticize something," I guess I'd reply "Good luck with that!" I certainly know my limits (and don't think Paul is infallible)...but we've also seen countless examples of "experts" being wrong (or having bias and agendas they don't often communicate), so I'm not sure it's accurate to suggest only experts are qualified to evaluate?
Sometimes the main question is WHY that research? If they didn't look for an actual causation, what is the point?
Except maybe to get corporate funding and the potential for a good headline despite the weak findings.