8 ms·

Shouldn't science be the standard? Why implicitly be doubtful?

• AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  History? Given N "advances" that you hear touted based on mouse trials, how many turn into real human therapies? (Curing aging in mice isn't really the advance we're looking for.) How many turn into real human therapies that live up to the breathless announcements that were made based on the mouse trials? I don't have hard evidence, but my gut estimate is 10-20% actually deliver. So, yes, while waiting for the science, there is some empirical grounds to have a default stance of doubt (or, if you prefer, skepticism).
• siver_john 5y ago
  1) The original linked article is not a link to a scientific work. Therefore it's credence should be taken with a grain of salt as news articles need clicks more than they need boring sounding article titles. 2) In science often abstracts or intros open with grand ideas before settling into a much smaller scope. 3) The rise of predatory journals, not to mention people citing pre-print arXivs means even if something looks likes a reasonable article, it's good to get the opinions of other experts. 4) Just because something works doesn't imply how practical it is for actual deployment. (I've been to plenty of chemical talks about fantastic polymers, I've only ever seen one turn into anything of value.)