= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tenoke comments on Googling is the first step. Consider adding scholarly searches to your arsenal. - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (45)
Yes, except that I am the only expert on what music I like.
Are we talking about degrees here. I am pretty sure Ive been talking about top level articles. Or can anyone with an IQ above 110 publish one of those?
No winning out here. The research will be closer to the truth than a random answer because the accuracy of the theories gets compared to reality buy doing experiments for example. Or because not every single person is completely biased and blind to the results that they get.
Hey, that's why they are correlations. I am not stopping you from believing that being predisposed to diabetes and cancer or whatever makes you more likely to eat red meat for example.
As I said in the other thread, I am not participating in this conversation any more.
Oh, so you agree there are can be good reasons to discount the "expert" establishment, no matter how much "peer review" or citations they have.
Yes. But getting a degree is normally a prereq for publishing, and everyone who gets a degree publishes something. And yes, you can publish in the "top" journal articles in grad school.
Not every single person has to be biased. Just enough of them.
But the researchers conclude that red meat increases your risk of heart disease simply because it is associated with heart disease. That is dishonest. If they can get away with blatantly unsubstantiated statements like that in epidemiological papers, what can't they get away with buried in their SAS databases and algorithms?