4 ms·
The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead. The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong. Long story shor
by cambalache 6y ago
The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead.
The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong. Long story short: they asked 300 caucasian women if they were "sun-loving" or "sun-phobic", assessed their "apparent age" by a panel of people (how objective) and then calculated a vague correlation.
- nl 6y ago> The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead. It summarises the evidence from a number of papers. That exact quote comes from one, but the "Age" section alone includes 5 references to skin damage (not including those for melanoma). > The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong. Asking "apparent age" seems a reasonable first step in assessing something as vague as "visible signs of aging"
- cambalache 6y agoNot when you claim percentages with 4 significant figures.
- nl 6y agoLook, you asked for a source. I'm not going to defend every single thing out of a couple of random papers I googled for you. The claim is reasonable and has evidence supporting it, and if the exact number is 60% or 90% or 40% it seems pretty reasonable to believe the point of the original comment.