You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Douglas_Knight comments on Open thread for December 9 - 16, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: NancyLebovitz 09 December 2013 04:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (371)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 13 December 2013 05:33:24PM 4 points [-]

If a hypothetical bothers you, maybe you should hold off proposing solutions and instead investigate whether it is a real problem.

Comment author: gwern 13 December 2013 06:14:34PM *  4 points [-]

I'm not sure losing the non-English literature is a big problem. A lot of foreign research is really bad. A little demonstration from 5 days ago: I criticized a Chinese study on moxibustion https://plus.google.com/103530621949492999968/posts/TisYM64ckLM

This was translated into / written in English and published in a peer-reviewed journal (Neural Regeneration Research). And it's complete crap.

Of course there is very bad research published by the West on alternative medicine too, but as the links I provide show, Chinese research is systematically and generally of very low quality. If China cannot produce good research, what can we expect of other countries?

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 13 December 2013 07:57:15PM 2 points [-]

The language that I think most plausibly contains a disconnected scientific literature is Japanese.