Difficult to sell on Reddit, which seems to have the ability to eat up every spare moment of the day..

While I absolutely applaud your effiorts to make sure the science you report is of good quality, I wonder if there is a need to educate the public about the darker side of science, that these sorts of things do go on and not everything can be taken at face value. My impression is that there is a significant cohort out there who think that if a scientist says something that makes it true. I suspecct inculcating a more critical approach in the general public would be beneficial in the long term.

Hi! How do you deal with issues like the reproducibility crisis and the growth of citation farms?

1. Tiny study. 20 children is hardly a large sample.
2. The fact that the children enrolled in a Mahjong class sets them apart from most other children anyway. As such having a control group from the general population, rather than from people who might have enrolled for Mahjong but for some reason didn't, introduces a potential for bias.

Note, incidentally, that I'm not trying to discourage kids from playing Mahjong at that age. I did and look where it got me (!)

I take a break, but would never buy fuel, at the motorway services. Prices are just too high there.

I've got about a 400 mile range in my petrol car, enough to get me from my home in Mid Wales up to London and back. What's the range on one of these smaller batteries?

Fair enough.

Maybe tag as 'announcement' then, for the sake of pedants like me?

Good post, worth knowing, though technically not peer-reviewed research and as such could be removed.

Oh I do like to be beside the seaside..

As an older adult, it would be helpful if some limits were set on what counts as 'heavy load exercise'.

I think you need to actually read both Popper and particularly Kuhn. It's not corruption that it takes a lot to overthrow an established theory, it's pragmatic and human.

I've not experienced that personally, but all I'm saying is that you can't take that from Kuhn or Popper unless they have written stuff subsequent to my study of the subject.

Kuhn doesn't suggest that this happens in practice. Whether it actually does is another issue.

Paradigms aren't enforced, they are simply belief-structures.

I read "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" 45 years ago but I don't remember it saying that. It certainly said that scientific progress is not as straightforward as Popper suggested, with competing paradigms not even agreeing on what counted as progress, but that's not the same as corruption. I'd more associate that with someone like Paul Feyerabend.

Popper's work has been around, and mainstream in the philosophy of science, almost as long as clinical corruption. If it's not made a difference by now, it's asking a lot to expect it to do so now.

In recent years there has been a move in the medical profession to define death earlier than was the norm, based on brain death or early symptoms of brain death because as u/theangryfurlong says the organs can be kept 'alive' after brain death, making transplanting them into another person's body more practical. If death is defined by permanent cessation of heart function there is very little time for organ transplants.

What, you mean the general public doesn't have the same level of understanding of animal husbandry practices as those in the industry?