5 ms·

She advocates to „Limit spread of [scientific] misinformation on social media“ [1] yet uses social media to attack published and peer reviewed science (the gold

• bordercases 5y ago
  As a "gold-standard" it's still fallible. Peer-reviewed studies can and do fail replication.
• NtochkaNzvanova 5y ago
  She calls attention to instances of fraud that have made it through peer review and publication. Are you saying that is somehow comparable to spreading "misinformation" on social media? Published research is not perfect; tons of crap gets through peer review. Every scientist knows this. Peer reviewed science may be more reliable than other forms of information, but treating it as settled and unquestionable is foolish and, in fact, unscientific.
  • lixtra 5y ago
    My problem is her call for censorship of misinformation. Currently institutional judgment on misinformation relies on fact checkers, that in best case turn to published research, which is not perfect as you pointed out. Depending on the zeitgeist in the future she calls for, she may be censored herself.
    • anitil 5y ago
      That tweet you linked was talking about her ideas about how to improve scientific integrity. I would hardly characterize it as a call to censorship.
    • FooHentai 5y ago
      An expansion of that point in your original message might have been better received. The way it was phrased read like you yourself held the opinion that she was using social media to spread lies.