3 ms·
Pretty unnecessary FUD. Did you have any objection to the actual content? How did you determine that the work was "not a scientific study of any type"? Seems un
by resu_nimda 8y ago
Pretty unnecessary FUD. Did you have any objection to the actual content? How did you determine that the work was "not a scientific study of any type"? Seems un-scientific to dismiss the whole thing based on that paragraph.
- duxup 8y agoI didn't read his comment as "dismiss the whole thing".
- scott_s 8y agoLooking at the abstract (there are several links in the comments), I think it's accurate to say it's not a scientific study because it's not a study. That is, to me, a "study" implies some systematic examination of some observable thing. But this paper is more a formal hypothesis: the author is proposing that a particular phenomenon exists, with some anecdotal support. That means that the story title is not accurate, as it declares the thing exists, when the entire point of the paper is that it may exist.
- resu_nimda 8y agoThat means that the story title is not accurate, as it declares the thing exists, when the entire point of the paper is that it may exist. To be fair that is on par with a lot of science journalism (though I do realize this article was published by the journal itself). But I take the point and on a closer read I understand the original comment a bit better, the journal isn't actually purporting to put forth scientific studies, just hypotheses.