3 ms·

I read articles, got more intrested, read the paper, found some procedural mistakes that threw red flags, looked for scientists in the field to see what they th

I read articles, got more intrested, read the paper, found some procedural mistakes that threw red flags, looked for scientists in the field to see what they think about it and after all that I looked at his social media and got annoyed real fast that it was just another nothing burger by an angry person.

ctoth 4y ago
Curious, can you enumerate the red flags you saw?
- theCrowing 4y ago
  The biggest was probably stating the results as facts in the result section and only as "more likely" in the conclusion. Sample size, taking only part of the genomes. The code quality of their scripts on GitHub and especially the comments in them. Bad spelling and convulted sentences... there is a lot more have a look yourself.
  - postalrat 4y ago
    So you judged the science based on spelling in source code comments?
ipaddr 4y ago
If you are looking for scientists in the field that tells us you are not in the field. But then you tell us you judged major procedural mistakes. How could someone who knows nothing about the field be an expert in procedural techniques in this field? Something tells me you are part of a group who feels threatened by these findings.
- theCrowing 4y ago
  The process of writing scientific papers is mostly the same no matter the subject. The biggest flag was probably that he stated that he is 99,9% sure in interviews but the number never shows in the paper and in the conclusion part he just states "more likely". You don't need a bioengineering degree that something like that throws a red flag.
  - reitanqild 4y ago
    So you didn't find a red flag in the scientific paper but in something that was said in one interview?
    - theCrowing 4y ago
      He also stated it as fact in the shortform result (without the 99,9% number) contracdicting his own conclusion in the conclusion section. Sometimes providing information that has a clear correlation with the source material shows you that most people in this thread are trying to argue without reading the paper itself... helps sieving out if people are commenting in good faith or not.

ctoth 4y ago

Curious, can you enumerate the red flags you saw?

theCrowing 4y ago
The biggest was probably stating the results as facts in the result section and only as "more likely" in the conclusion. Sample size, taking only part of the genomes. The code quality of their scripts on GitHub and especially the comments in them. Bad spelling and convulted sentences... there is a lot more have a look yourself.
- postalrat 4y ago
  So you judged the science based on spelling in source code comments?

ipaddr 4y ago

If you are looking for scientists in the field that tells us you are not in the field. But then you tell us you judged major procedural mistakes. How could someone who knows nothing about the field be an expert in procedural techniques in this field? Something tells me you are part of a group who feels threatened by these findings.

theCrowing 4y ago
The process of writing scientific papers is mostly the same no matter the subject. The biggest flag was probably that he stated that he is 99,9% sure in interviews but the number never shows in the paper and in the conclusion part he just states "more likely". You don't need a bioengineering degree that something like that throws a red flag.
- reitanqild 4y ago
  So you didn't find a red flag in the scientific paper but in something that was said in one interview?
  - theCrowing 4y ago
    He also stated it as fact in the shortform result (without the 99,9% number) contracdicting his own conclusion in the conclusion section. Sometimes providing information that has a clear correlation with the source material shows you that most people in this thread are trying to argue without reading the paper itself... helps sieving out if people are commenting in good faith or not.