4 ms·

Is there any point where you think we can question Science, Nature, etc? If so, what point would that be? I think trying to reproduce studies or questioning log

Is there any point where you think we can question Science, Nature, etc? If so, what point would that be? I think trying to reproduce studies or questioning logical fallacies, inaccuracies; quite easily justify criticism of established journals. Especially important when criticism comes from similar experts with high academic achievements.

soco 4y ago
But please do question it! Just calling it, I quote, "crock of shite" does not deserve the name "questioning" by any measure.
- giardini 4y ago
  My statement was: "What a total utter crock of shite the posts on this topic are! YC needs to pay better attention to nutball posting on their website." I was clearly referring to YC posts on this topic. But now that you mention it, the entire source of this discussion is/are also an utter crock(s) of shite. And I assure you, the term "crock of shite" indicates a serious questioning of the referred item(s). So, FTFY!8-))
dmarchand90 4y ago
Again, it's just the journalism section. No science of any value ever happened there. Treat that section like it was some independent newspaper that happens to have the same name.
t_mann 4y ago
Yes, anything is always up for critical inspection (pretty much), as far as I'm concerned. If you show me a thorough analysis showing that their content is systematically biased, I'd have a look. Or if you show me that a particular study is flawed. I'm well aware of the massive replication crises in multiple disciplines, and of the fact that this news section is separate from their journals. But the poster was only questioning the publisher's motives (which I think can't be done without looking at who the publisher is and what their incentives are, which the poster didn't do), without discussing the evidence at hand at all, and without any acknowledgement of the fact that their own reaction to this news might also be driven by what they want to be true.

soco 4y ago

But please do question it! Just calling it, I quote, "crock of shite" does not deserve the name "questioning" by any measure.

giardini 4y ago
My statement was: "What a total utter crock of shite the posts on this topic are! YC needs to pay better attention to nutball posting on their website." I was clearly referring to YC posts on this topic. But now that you mention it, the entire source of this discussion is/are also an utter crock(s) of shite. And I assure you, the term "crock of shite" indicates a serious questioning of the referred item(s). So, FTFY!8-))

dmarchand90 4y ago

Again, it's just the journalism section. No science of any value ever happened there. Treat that section like it was some independent newspaper that happens to have the same name.

t_mann 4y ago

Yes, anything is always up for critical inspection (pretty much), as far as I'm concerned. If you show me a thorough analysis showing that their content is systematically biased, I'd have a look. Or if you show me that a particular study is flawed. I'm well aware of the massive replication crises in multiple disciplines, and of the fact that this news section is separate from their journals. But the poster was only questioning the publisher's motives (which I think can't be done without looking at who the publisher is and what their incentives are, which the poster didn't do), without discussing the evidence at hand at all, and without any acknowledgement of the fact that their own reaction to this news might also be driven by what they want to be true.