3 ms·
The one that follows shows what they call "incorrect" is just 2X larger. When I read the article I determined it was basically some folks on a hobby horse tryi
by dekhn 3y ago
The one that follows shows what they call "incorrect" is just 2X larger.
When I read the article I determined it was basically some folks on a hobby horse trying to promote their view and saying other people are wrong.
I don't have a problem with debunking absolutely made-up (no original source) numbers, but if you're sying people are wrong with a factor of 2 or 10 difference, you're just being overly pedantic.
- djtango 3y agoit's impossible to know where and how an assumption will be built upon common intuition in existing science. What if the estimate for an LD50 for a new drug going into a trial were an order of magnitude out due to one of the underlying inputs being an order of magnitude out. The worst case scenario is that things could die off that wrong number. If nor humans, at least a lot of rats...