I think what was meant was that appropriating research you can barely understand based on a couple cherry-picked quotes that seem to confirm your biased conclusion isn't a great way to form opinions.
If you started with the opposite idea, you'd easily find "peer reviewed" science that proved the exact opposite of your original point. You'd find a lot of engines that got damaged or showed no marked improvement. Understanding selection bias is also a part of the scientific process of analysing past research.
Edit: and specifically, understanding that a couple promising laboratory results on an isolated sample can take decades before it translates to a product that's usable in the real world. Our existing engine oils have many, many more additives, including ones that reduce wear and friction, operating in a careful balance. If the currently viable lubricating performance increase of this solution happened at the cost of other properties, you can easily see that everything said so far could be true, yet it would still wouldn't be a great idea to pour it into your engine.
If you started with the opposite idea, you'd easily find "peer reviewed" science that proved the exact opposite of your original point. You'd find a lot of engines that got damaged or showed no marked improvement. Understanding selection bias is also a part of the scientific process of analysing past research.
Edit: and specifically, understanding that a couple promising laboratory results on an isolated sample can take decades before it translates to a product that's usable in the real world. Our existing engine oils have many, many more additives, including ones that reduce wear and friction, operating in a careful balance. If the currently viable lubricating performance increase of this solution happened at the cost of other properties, you can easily see that everything said so far could be true, yet it would still wouldn't be a great idea to pour it into your engine.
Last edited: