2 ms·
You are still saying what Weinstein said you would say. Weinstein has laid out a case. It theoretically makes sense. It is quantifiable. He makes a good argum
by aaron695 6y ago
You are still saying what Weinstein said you would say.
Weinstein has laid out a case. It theoretically makes sense. It is quantifiable. He makes a good argument it is massively significant. If confirmed it is fixable. If confirmed it means things in other fields.
This is in pop culture, anyone researching with mice should have heard of it, so the fact no one can whip out an article disputing it says a lot.
Science is broken and scientists are not to be trusted. I think this is a good test case how science deals with this and if it can actually move forward. It needs a good rebuttal to address the issue.
- Gatsky 6y agoI don’t think you are listening to me. I am not disputing his point. I think it could well be valid and is certainly plausible. The idea is pretty clever. Attempts should be made to understand it more and minimise the effect. Great, add it to the list of problems with mouse models. It certainly isn’t at the top.
- aaron695 6y agoHonestly, the video only 18 mins (9 mins at 2X) long. Just give it a watch. He says it's the top. He explains why it is the top. It is logical and well thought out with theoretical and practical evidence it is the top. I'm happy to consider it's not the top. But you have to actually say what is at the top.