4 ms·
This post is so typical of all scientific posts to HN. Person posts negatively to the research and they never look at p valued or sample sizes. Also, they disr
by zitterbewegung 5y ago
This post is so typical of all scientific posts to HN.
Person posts negatively to the research and they never look at p valued or sample sizes. Also, they disregard any other possible research .
Then a few to a hundred posts refuting the parent with anecdotal evidence of both positive and negative outcomes especially when science doesn’t work in anecdotal evidence which is the point of science and it basically shows that they didn’t read the story either.
The big problem is that science isn’t one sided. That papers are cherry picked from preprints or even Confrence and journals where one out of ten papers in a Confrence or a journal publication refute the article regardless.
- ipaddr 5y agoAnd someone always posts a message like yours without actually reading the parent post. In the parent they suggest a greater trend spanning 2017 onward which isn't being mentioned. Large or small p value isn't the issue here
- isoskeles 5y agoAnd someone always posts a reply like yours without etc. etc.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]