From the original article:
A peer-reviewed, journal-published, replicated report is worth far more than what you see with your own eyes.
From the wiki page summary, quoted in this rerun post:
Publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals are more worthy of trust than what you detect with your own ears and eyes.
The word "replicated" seems to have disappeared from this paraphrasing, and that flips the paraphrased statement from true to false.
The word "replicated" seems to have disappeared from this paraphrasing, and that flips the paraphrased statement from true to false.
On the other hand the paraphrase also changed 'far more' to 'more' so technically it scrapes through. Even though the peer review process is only slightly better than chance it does add some value.
Today's post, Some Claims Are Just Too Extraordinary was originally published on 20 January 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was A Fable of Science and Politics, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.