5 ms·

What other ways are you referring to?

by rland 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago
Their own judgment on reading the paper, talking to other scientists they know, going to conferences, watching or participating in online discussions, etc.
- nine_k 6y ago
  This works if your time is infinite.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    Not even then. I used to be on a health list that was ostensibly looking for a "cure" or treatment for cystic fibrosis. They frequently posted links to abstracts of papers and discussed it on list and I had mixed feelings about that. I often didn't understand the medical terminology and it was just a blurb and yadda. At some point, I talked on the phone with a guy with a PhD that I knew through an entirely unrelated email list. And he told me to not bother to read the abstract if I couldn't get hold of the full paper because it often said something different from what the paper said. I was relieved to hear this and not at all surprised, so I quit reading those abstracts and trying to pretend to participate in those discussions or whatever. Some years later, a woman on that same list offered to co-author a paper with me and give me credit and yadda. And then she changed her mind and began trashing me on list and unsubscribed. Her son died of CF (at the age of 17) years and years before and she was in search for some pill to make it all better, obsessed with finding a cure because of his death. I use a lifestyle based approach. She was a smoker. I think the implication of my ideas is that it's partly her fault her son died. And I think her guilt over that possibility is why she's obsessed with finding an answer, but it has to be an answer that somehow absolves her of guilt and doesn't in any way suggest it's her fault. It needs to do the opposite for her to be satisfied. I was homeless at the time that she offered to write a paper with me. Once she kicked me to the curb, I didn't really have any place else to go. Anyway, regardless of your process, you need some signals of some sort. I relied on the opinion of the guy with the PhD in part because he had a PhD. And I think my life has been better for that. It's good to have a so-called "bullshit detector" but one of the ways we filter information is by relying on our understanding that some people can be believed even if we don't understand what they are saying because it is over our head.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > our understanding that some people can be believed even if we don't understand what they are saying because it is over our head. First, while this might apply to lay people trying to evaluate scientific claims, it should not apply to scientists trying to evaluate scientific claims in their own field. Second, peer review does not even pretend to be the kind of filter you are talking about. The fact that a paper has been peer reviewed is not evidence that it is correct or that its claims should be believed. Indeed, many peer reviewed papers later turn out to be wrong. (For example, all of the papers that were part of the "replication crisis" that got a lot of recent press were peer reviewed.) All peer review signals as a filter is that someone presumed to have relevant expertise thought the paper was worth publishing. I think recent experience has shown that this signal is virtually worthless now, though it might have had value in the past.
      - DoreenMichele 6y ago
        My general understanding is that most people do take peer review to be such a filter. I'm "just a lay person" but I'm also someone solving a real serious scientific problem and I'm dependent on trusting that people with PhD's who answer questions of mine about cell biology or whatever can be trusted because, unlike me, they had the capacity to pursue a PhD. I simply can't. I'm too busy solving a scientific problem like my life depends upon it because it does. And I'm sure this is a really stupid to comment to leave. I've written several drafts and I don't know a good way to engage your comment. I primarily replied to the comment about "infinite time" because I sort of have "infinite time" in that I'm an unemployed bum with a bit of unearned income who also occasionally tries to earn a few bucks and whose primary focus is on understanding a scientific question so that I don't die and all that. And as someone with "infinite time" to devote to reading articles and what not because reading those articles and what not is a higher priority than almost anything else since my life depends upon it, I find that I still need filtering mechanisms. Now that I've dug my grave deeper, I shall endeavor to tear myself away from the computer and try to get a little shut eye. Have a good evening.
        pdonis 6y ago

What other ways are you referring to?

by rland 6y ago

What other ways are you referring to?

Their own judgment on reading the paper, talking to other scientists they know, going to conferences, watching or participating in online discussions, etc.

nine_k 6y ago
This works if your time is infinite.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  Not even then. I used to be on a health list that was ostensibly looking for a "cure" or treatment for cystic fibrosis. They frequently posted links to abstracts of papers and discussed it on list and I had mixed feelings about that. I often didn't understand the medical terminology and it was just a blurb and yadda. At some point, I talked on the phone with a guy with a PhD that I knew through an entirely unrelated email list. And he told me to not bother to read the abstract if I couldn't get hold of the full paper because it often said something different from what the paper said. I was relieved to hear this and not at all surprised, so I quit reading those abstracts and trying to pretend to participate in those discussions or whatever. Some years later, a woman on that same list offered to co-author a paper with me and give me credit and yadda. And then she changed her mind and began trashing me on list and unsubscribed. Her son died of CF (at the age of 17) years and years before and she was in search for some pill to make it all better, obsessed with finding a cure because of his death. I use a lifestyle based approach. She was a smoker. I think the implication of my ideas is that it's partly her fault her son died. And I think her guilt over that possibility is why she's obsessed with finding an answer, but it has to be an answer that somehow absolves her of guilt and doesn't in any way suggest it's her fault. It needs to do the opposite for her to be satisfied. I was homeless at the time that she offered to write a paper with me. Once she kicked me to the curb, I didn't really have any place else to go. Anyway, regardless of your process, you need some signals of some sort. I relied on the opinion of the guy with the PhD in part because he had a PhD. And I think my life has been better for that. It's good to have a so-called "bullshit detector" but one of the ways we filter information is by relying on our understanding that some people can be believed even if we don't understand what they are saying because it is over our head.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > our understanding that some people can be believed even if we don't understand what they are saying because it is over our head. First, while this might apply to lay people trying to evaluate scientific claims, it should not apply to scientists trying to evaluate scientific claims in their own field. Second, peer review does not even pretend to be the kind of filter you are talking about. The fact that a paper has been peer reviewed is not evidence that it is correct or that its claims should be believed. Indeed, many peer reviewed papers later turn out to be wrong. (For example, all of the papers that were part of the "replication crisis" that got a lot of recent press were peer reviewed.) All peer review signals as a filter is that someone presumed to have relevant expertise thought the paper was worth publishing. I think recent experience has shown that this signal is virtually worthless now, though it might have had value in the past.
    - DoreenMichele 6y ago
      My general understanding is that most people do take peer review to be such a filter. I'm "just a lay person" but I'm also someone solving a real serious scientific problem and I'm dependent on trusting that people with PhD's who answer questions of mine about cell biology or whatever can be trusted because, unlike me, they had the capacity to pursue a PhD. I simply can't. I'm too busy solving a scientific problem like my life depends upon it because it does. And I'm sure this is a really stupid to comment to leave. I've written several drafts and I don't know a good way to engage your comment. I primarily replied to the comment about "infinite time" because I sort of have "infinite time" in that I'm an unemployed bum with a bit of unearned income who also occasionally tries to earn a few bucks and whose primary focus is on understanding a scientific question so that I don't die and all that. And as someone with "infinite time" to devote to reading articles and what not because reading those articles and what not is a higher priority than almost anything else since my life depends upon it, I find that I still need filtering mechanisms. Now that I've dug my grave deeper, I shall endeavor to tear myself away from the computer and try to get a little shut eye. Have a good evening.
      - pdonis 6y ago