3 ms·

It's sad to see people accept the credibility of this article simply because it's from Nature. The author himself is a freelance science journalist (with no rea

It's sad to see people accept the credibility of this article simply because it's from Nature. The author himself is a freelance science journalist (with no real expertise in the field), so this article is not worth any more of our attention than many twitter threads. You can gauge the trustworthiness yourself here: https://x.com/dangaristo?s=21&t=lI9nNO9bkbL1YKFrdIw_Tg https://x.com/dangaristo?s=21&t=lI9nNO9bkbL1YKFrdIw_Tg

firtoz 3y ago
Is it right or is it wrong?
- forward-slashed 3y ago
  I care about the process of determining truth. If one does expert deferral, then they should do so properly. Sadly Nature is expending their social capital as a scientific journal to pivot to a typical news organization. If one is up to date with sc news, this article should not affect their beliefs. But maybe some people are happy that they can share an article from Nature to convince their friends.
  - Forgotthepass8 3y ago
    It is sad to see that even nature may be a victim of sociological decay.
  - wesleywt 3y ago
    What did Nature do wrong in this case. Be specific. And show us where the findings are replicated. That should be easy.
  - fsh 3y ago
    Nature has had a news section since 1869 [1]. There are many things to criticise about them, but the science journalism is not one of them. [1] https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/1/issues/2#News https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/1/issues/2#News
josefx 3y ago
So what about the sources he cites, are those also from freelance science journalists? Or are you going after the messenger because you can't attack the message?
fsh 3y ago
I accept the credibility of the article because it is very well written (far above any twitter thread on the issue that I have seen), and it cites high-quality sources. In my experience, the news section of nature contains some of the best science journalism out there.
wesleywt 3y ago
Do not judge for yourself because you are not a dense material scientist. Comments like these pose themselves as intelligent. But intelligent people know that they don't have the expertise to judge everything and do defer to experts in the field. And the experts currently are not able to replicate the findings.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
puchatek 3y ago
It's quoting several researchers verbatim which gives a clear picture of the compound in question. At this point it would be a scandal if the quotes were made up or taken out of context. I don't see what is sad about people believing it. Do you go back to the source on every article you read online or in print?

firtoz 3y ago

Is it right or is it wrong?

forward-slashed 3y ago
I care about the process of determining truth. If one does expert deferral, then they should do so properly. Sadly Nature is expending their social capital as a scientific journal to pivot to a typical news organization. If one is up to date with sc news, this article should not affect their beliefs. But maybe some people are happy that they can share an article from Nature to convince their friends.
- Forgotthepass8 3y ago
  It is sad to see that even nature may be a victim of sociological decay.
- wesleywt 3y ago
  What did Nature do wrong in this case. Be specific. And show us where the findings are replicated. That should be easy.
- fsh 3y ago
  Nature has had a news section since 1869 [1]. There are many things to criticise about them, but the science journalism is not one of them. [1] https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/1/issues/2#News https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/1/issues/2#News

josefx 3y ago

So what about the sources he cites, are those also from freelance science journalists? Or are you going after the messenger because you can't attack the message?

fsh 3y ago

I accept the credibility of the article because it is very well written (far above any twitter thread on the issue that I have seen), and it cites high-quality sources. In my experience, the news section of nature contains some of the best science journalism out there.

wesleywt 3y ago

Do not judge for yourself because you are not a dense material scientist. Comments like these pose themselves as intelligent. But intelligent people know that they don't have the expertise to judge everything and do defer to experts in the field. And the experts currently are not able to replicate the findings.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

puchatek 3y ago

It's quoting several researchers verbatim which gives a clear picture of the compound in question. At this point it would be a scandal if the quotes were made up or taken out of context. I don't see what is sad about people believing it. Do you go back to the source on every article you read online or in print?