6 ms·
Wikipedia discusses the reliability of academic sources here[0], advising “extreme caution” when using primary research papers, preferring reviews. This incide
by jl6 3y ago
Wikipedia discusses the reliability of academic sources here[0], advising “extreme caution” when using primary research papers, preferring reviews.
This incident is a case in point, and I wish media wouldn’t rush to publicize papers until they have been through much more extensive validation, replication and review. It’s especially worrying when primary medical research is enthusiastically rushed into the hands of doctors many years ahead of the systematic reviews that temper them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Som...
- swyx 3y agolooks nervously at the arxiv culture in AI...
- tmpz22 3y agoHello I work for Hubris Ventures and noticed you had AI in your comment. Are you interested in funding?
- klabb3 3y agoHello I work for Hype Bank and noticed you had venture in your comment. Are you interested in some cheap loans?
- whimsicalism 3y agoI think publication of code culture in AI mitigates this relatively well compared to other fields, but it is getting strained recently.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zeroCalories 3y agoI don't think there is a lot wrong with doctors, or specialists getting hold of individual or preprint papers. Sometimes they're the best you have when you need to make decisions. I think the problems start when you have a layman trying to understand a topic. You can find all kinds of papers and results with contradicting evidence, so you need foundational knowledge to interpret them.
- whimsicalism 3y ago"doctor" is more lay of a title than many think imo
- zeroCalories 3y agoDoctors vary but they're still the best at what they do, which is deciding on a treatment given limited information.
- tremon 3y agoIn my ideal world, they shouldn't be doing that at all. They should be advising on treatments and performing said treatments, not deciding on them.
- zeroCalories 3y agoMy understanding is that in the U.S a patient always has the right to refuse treatment. The only power a Doctor might have is to deny a treatment, but that seems reasonable from a positive/negative rights perspective. But I get it, you and the other poster are trying to seed doubt about vaccines.
- whimsicalism 3y ago> But I get it, you and the other poster are trying to seed doubt about vaccines. yeah no, not at all
- tremon 3y agoyou and the other poster are trying to seed doubt about vaccines WTF? How did you get that from what I wrote? Are you under the impression that individual doctors decide on which vaccines to give to which patient?
- AmericanChopper 3y agoI think a bigger problem (especially if you think ordinary people shouldn’t be entitled to their own opinions), is when people advocate for science to have the final say on all matters of public policy. Especially when so many people consider any form of skepticism towards scientific findings to be some sort of heresy.