4 ms·

I agree with you that many people are just echoing whatever they see on social media, but it’s easier than ever to read the primary literature for yourself. Syn

by rsfern 5y ago

I agree with you that many people are just echoing whatever they see on social media, but it’s easier than ever to read the primary literature for yourself. Synthesizing what you read in in introduction sections can be a good way to get a sense for the current consensus, and they are usually pretty accessible if the paper is any good. As a layperson the technical meat of the research is harder to assess, but there are lit reviews and editorials that you can read, in addition to reading blog posts and such by people in the field

ifyoubuildit 5y ago
> Synthesizing what you read in in introduction sections can be a good way to get a sense for the current consensus, and they are usually pretty accessible if the paper is any good. This is basically how I've formed my own opinions, so I hope that its close to whatever consensus is (if there even is one yet, I assume real stable consensus takes time). But I temper my certainty a bit and limit myself to saying things like "there is evidence that [xyz]", because I know that's a true statement that I can back up. I can't speak much to the quality of the evidence, but I can be aware that it exists and I can also try to find supporting/countering evidence, or a lack thereof. I don't know that I can get all the way to judging what the consensus is though. Once I get to secondary sources, I feel like I'm on much shakier ground. There are just too many forces at play: social/political pressures, monetary incentives (bloggers have to give their base what they want if they want to thrive), the difficulty of understanding something novel, and a rapidly changing world on top of it all. So when I see people pulling out the "most experts" card (consensus in other words), I can't help but discount it heavily. They could be friends with the actual only researchers publishing on a topic, or they could have gotten it from their uncle on Facebook, or anywhere in between.

by rsfern 5y ago

ifyoubuildit 5y ago

> Synthesizing what you read in in introduction sections can be a good way to get a sense for the current consensus, and they are usually pretty accessible if the paper is any good. This is basically how I've formed my own opinions, so I hope that its close to whatever consensus is (if there even is one yet, I assume real stable consensus takes time). But I temper my certainty a bit and limit myself to saying things like "there is evidence that [xyz]", because I know that's a true statement that I can back up. I can't speak much to the quality of the evidence, but I can be aware that it exists and I can also try to find supporting/countering evidence, or a lack thereof. I don't know that I can get all the way to judging what the consensus is though. Once I get to secondary sources, I feel like I'm on much shakier ground. There are just too many forces at play: social/political pressures, monetary incentives (bloggers have to give their base what they want if they want to thrive), the difficulty of understanding something novel, and a rapidly changing world on top of it all. So when I see people pulling out the "most experts" card (consensus in other words), I can't help but discount it heavily. They could be friends with the actual only researchers publishing on a topic, or they could have gotten it from their uncle on Facebook, or anywhere in between.