4 ms·

Lives are -always- at stake. Everything in science and society is high consequence. Delay approving a good drug? People die. Prematurely approve a bad drug. Peo

by gizmo 5y ago

Lives are -always- at stake. Everything in science and society is high consequence. Delay approving a good drug? People die. Prematurely approve a bad drug. People die. Every dollar allocated in the wrong place results in people dying needlessly. It's not the job of scientific journals to worry about what irresponsible journalists might do with what they publish. Journals should just publish whatever they believe are interesting findings, and if science progresses society wins out in the end.

dazag 5y ago
Oh my god, some sense in the platform, most of the people just speak nonsense. How easy is to control people with the most stupid post by a reporter.
- Cipater 5y ago
  Journals should just publish whatever they believe are interesting findings, and if science progresses society wins out in the end. This is the comment you're praising? May as well just replace journals with blogs if that's the sentiment.
bipson 5y ago
Oh wow. Nobody said that the journal should not have published because it is not interesting. You should instead focus on the given argument of "scientific standards" and the Scientific Method, the implicit rule-set of science (to be fair, you can question that too, but you didn't). A Journal uses peer review to avoid publishing things that do not conform to a certain base level of scientific standard, e.g. comparing the wrong numbers/things, or ignoring causation vs. correlation, drawing the wrong conclusions, etc. A peer is supposed to flag such things and remind the authors of the flaws.
amazingman 5y ago
> It's not the job of scientific journals to worry about what irresponsible journalists might do with what they publish. It's definitely the job of scientific journals to weed out papers that draw strong conclusions — e.g. 2 vaccine-caused deaths for every 3 COVID-caused deaths — based on bad data/assumptions — e.g. every death in a vaccinated individual is a vaccine-caused death. Especially when the subject is a matter of public health during a public health crisis.

by gizmo 5y ago

dazag 5y ago

Oh my god, some sense in the platform, most of the people just speak nonsense. How easy is to control people with the most stupid post by a reporter.

Cipater 5y ago
Journals should just publish whatever they believe are interesting findings, and if science progresses society wins out in the end. This is the comment you're praising? May as well just replace journals with blogs if that's the sentiment.

bipson 5y ago

Oh wow. Nobody said that the journal should not have published because it is not interesting. You should instead focus on the given argument of "scientific standards" and the Scientific Method, the implicit rule-set of science (to be fair, you can question that too, but you didn't). A Journal uses peer review to avoid publishing things that do not conform to a certain base level of scientific standard, e.g. comparing the wrong numbers/things, or ignoring causation vs. correlation, drawing the wrong conclusions, etc. A peer is supposed to flag such things and remind the authors of the flaws.

amazingman 5y ago

> It's not the job of scientific journals to worry about what irresponsible journalists might do with what they publish. It's definitely the job of scientific journals to weed out papers that draw strong conclusions — e.g. 2 vaccine-caused deaths for every 3 COVID-caused deaths — based on bad data/assumptions — e.g. every death in a vaccinated individual is a vaccine-caused death. Especially when the subject is a matter of public health during a public health crisis.