3 ms·
As a random internet commenter, I think I face a bit of a paradox when answering this question. Do you, a random internet commenter, think this is a good paper?
by tomlockwood 4y ago
As a random internet commenter, I think I face a bit of a paradox when answering this question. Do you, a random internet commenter, think this is a good paper? Should I believe you and the other people here? Should I look at how many upvotes this has on HN and see it as a sign of credibility, when all the upvotes come from random internet people?
- naasking 4y agoI think evaluating credibility by placing a paper in the evidence pyramid is generally a good idea. I don't think the replication crisis is a reason to outright dismiss a paper, but certainly skepticism before replication is always warranted. I think one should also always be skeptical of how universal one's own experience truly is.
- tomlockwood 4y agoI think I'd place this paper alone only a hair above someone's qualitative judgement, on the evidence pyramid, to be honest.
- naasking 4y agoI don't know. It features thousands of data points from different groups in two different countries showing the same trend. That's substantially more compelling than anecdotes IMO, even after tempering expectations due to the replication crisis, but to each their own.
- tomlockwood 4y agoThe only reason we're seeing it is because a largely untrained audience decided to upvote it, because it matches their anecdotal experience enough that they think it's a good paper.