A small but important reframing: I agree that (open data) + (reproducibility) + (review) is a better bar than any one in isolation. (This applies to empirical

A small but important reframing: I agree that (open data) + (reproducibility) + (review) is a better bar than any one in isolation. (This applies to empirical sciences only. In contrast, for a mathematical paper, rigorous reviews of the formal logic are the gold-standard.) I choose the phrase 'review' intentionally; it doesn't need to follow one of the typical [1] 'peer review' processes from a journal. There are likely alternative methods that are (at least as) or (more) effective. Some fields have seen amazing contributions from 'lay people' all across the world. > If you're trying to make decisions about personal health, it pays to take a cautious approach (IMO) and let people decide for themselves. For a person equipped with the time, skill, rationality, and motivation, I agree. But it is an empirical question to assess how many people have these skills. I also want to push back against what might be an individualistic bias [2] in the statement above. Even if one is an individualist, it isn't optimally efficient nor practical for an individual to 'take on' all this responsibility. It is rational and efficient to place some degree of trust in others. [1] These processes vary and should be treated with a fair bit of skepticism. I want to to dig in more; e.g. to what degree have these processes been designed to account for human realities so as to maximize quality? [2]: See also https://so2020.isosonline.org/conference/the-individualist-bias/ https://so2020.isosonline.org/conference/the-individualist-b... "Individualism claims that social entities (e.g. groups, institutions) are essentially nothing but suitably arranged aggregates of individuals. This is usually tried to be demonstrated through developing accounts of reduction or supervenience. Holism, on the other hand, claims that social entities are sui generis as something over and above individuals."