I would expect meta-analysis to require such knowledge anyway,
Ideally a meta-analyst would have domain-specific knowledge, but the process of doing a basic meta-analysis is standardized enough that one can carry it out without such knowledge. One just needs to systematically locate studies, extract effect sizes from them, and find various weighted averages of those effect sizes.
Are meta-analyses customarily done other than by experts in the field?
Good point. Most meta-analyses are done by people in the field, although I'm not sure whether they're typically experts in the specific phenomenon they're meta-analyzing.
Thinking about it, maybe the problem's a simple one: estimating systematic errors is really hard. I've seen it done occasionally for experimental physics papers, where authors can plausibly argue they've managed to pinpoint all possible sources of systematic error and account for them. But an epidemiologist meta-analyzing observational studies generally can't quantify confounding biases and analogous sources of systematic error.
Most meta-analyses are done by people in the field, although I'm not sure whether they're typically experts in the specific phenomenon they're meta-analyzing.
My own impression has been this as well: if you already understand your basic null-hypothesis testing, a regular meta-analysis isn't that hard to learn how to do.
But an epidemiologist meta-analyzing observational studies generally can't quantify confounding biases and analogous sources of systematic error.
Do you have any materials on epidemiological meta-analyses? I've been thinking of trying t...
How much confidence do you place in the scientific theory that ordinary matter is made of discrete units, or 'atoms', as opposed to being infinitely divisible?
More than 50%? 90%? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%? 99.999%? More? If so, how much more? (If describing your answer in percentages is cumbersome, then feel free to use the logarithmic scale of decibans, where 10 decibans corresponds to 90% confidence, 20 to 99%, 30 to 99.9%, etc.)
This question freely acknowledges that there are aspects of physics which the atomic theory does not directly cover, such as conditions of extremely high energy. This question is primarily concerned with that portion of physics in which the atomic theory makes testable predictions.
This question also freely acknowledges that its current phrasing and presentation may not be the best possible to elicit answers from the LessWrong community, and will be happy to accept suggestions for improvement.
Edit: By 'atomic theory', this question refers to the century-plus-old theory. A reasonably accurate rewording is: "Do you believe 'H2O' is a meaningful description of water?".