I don’t get the “disgust” towards @bryan_johnson. He seems to be putting his own skin in the game of others. He’s not going to live forever, but the experiments on himself might reveal something that helps others live longer or better. x.com/i/trending/187…

@bryan_johnson is an example of bad researcher. His “project” isn’t research, it’s not peer reviewed nor is it broadly applicable (n=1). He’s a dude with a hobby that few care much about, and he spends most his time in the media, for reasons which allude, yet people follow his advice which is half of what’s wrong with modern society. Influencers with little rigorous and tested evidence championing voodoo and counting midnight erections to others. One of the most pointless persona’s of the modern era.

@ThePythonQuant @bryan_johnson The discovery of antibiotics was also n=1, yet…

@ThePythonQuant @dvassallo @bryan_johnson Science follows practitioners.

I'll take the other side... "Experts" insist on following the process and the process is broken. RCTs take too long and cost too much. Experts begrudge those who take a different path, ignore their rules and eschew their consult. Bryan on the other hand... he may be n of 1, but he is crowd-sourcing more datapoints into an uncontrolled meta experiment with multiple independent and multiple dependent variables. If this becomes a movement and continues to produce affirmation and beneficial results, it potentially points to a new approach to experimentation.

@ThePythonQuant @dvassallo @bryan_johnson You clearly haven't researched the subject, as his protocol isn't meant to be research but based on research. To suggest he is a bad researcher is as silly as to call SpaceX bad researchers, simply because they're operating on the edge of technology and knowledge.

@ThePythonQuant @dvassallo @bryan_johnson weird, you should tell this to the scientists, researchers, and doctors who are publishing as a result of their work with him Surely with your expertise on the matter they will defer to you and have all their papers retracted?

@ThePythonQuant @dvassallo @bryan_johnson Ah yes, the famous 21st century replication crisis "science" brought to you by 21% taxation "people."

@ThePythonQuant @dvassallo @bryan_johnson I've published in both Science and Nature and seen the irreproducibility in established research. The n=1 argument applies to lots of peer-reviewed research. And peer reviewing is unfortunately not a stamp of quality. That said, I don't know @bryan_johnson or his work.

@ThePythonQuant @dvassallo @bryan_johnson this is same every as is LeCunn saying its science only when its "published"

@ThePythonQuant @dvassallo @bryan_johnson Lol this is the prototypical midcurve intellektchual retort.

@ThePythonQuant @dvassallo @bryan_johnson Yann LeCun's mentality 🤦‍♂️

@ThePythonQuant @dvassallo @bryan_johnson Yes 👍 instagram.com/reel/DHh_mQvuF…

n = 1 can be very useful. I think a cannon ball follows a parabola, I try it, it works, I base my defenses on it, I win. Peer review is relatively new and has absolutely no connection to science fundamentally, it is just one way to organize and filter information, but is in no way special. You can very much do science in the way Bryan Johnson is. He is simply asking the most fundamental scientific question you can: does it work. He tries it, makes a judgement, goes on, tries another thing. He will discover some things, some will be generalizable and garner more research. Statistically, he will do more for meaningful scientific research than 99% of other people. Probably higher when compared with social scientists specifically.