4 ms·
The value of one single article, however presented in "scientific" form, whichever magazine publishes it, is practically 0. The sooner one realizes that, the so
by AshamedCaptain 6y ago
The value of one single article, however presented in "scientific" form, whichever magazine publishes it, is practically 0. The sooner one realizes that, the sooner one can stop debunking each and every homeopathy "paper"... the earlier one can move to do real science.
Yes, it's sad, you will not be able to detect small effects because they will have a very hard time getting reproduced above noise level, but there is just no alternative.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoSeveral articles, and one of them was then cited at least once.
- LordDragonfang 6y agoI think that's a very naive way of looking at it. You can't say "if everybody would just educate themselves on this topic", because the vast, vast majority of people do not. Singular papers can do real harm, as we can see from a whole movement of "vaccines cause autism" stemming from one fallacious paper. And even without going to those extremes, it's clear that confirmation bias will cause people to find even a single paper confirming their scientifically bankrupt ideas as a way to bolster and legitimize their campaigns to spread harmful misinformation.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> You can't say "if everybody would just educate themselves on this topic", because the vast, vast majority of people do not. > Singular papers can do real harm, as we can see from a whole movement of "vaccines cause autism" stemming from one fallacious paper. The vast, vast majority of people don't read the papers you like either. That includes the "vaccines cause autism" movement; 0% of members have read any related paper. You mention some real problems, but they aren't addressed by the peer review system.