4 ms·
I would agree if the article was an example of Betteridge's law of headlines [0], but in this case it is legitimately reflecting the overall message of the arti
by Mordisquitos 2y ago
I would agree if the article was an example of Betteridge's law of headlines [0], but in this case it is legitimately reflecting the overall message of the article, which is that it is becoming an open research question in science whether viruses trigger Alzheimer's having previously been a fringe hypothesis.
The very fact that the last sentence of the article is expressed as a conditional is also consistent with the use of a question for the headline:
> 'If antiviral treatments can indeed slow, delay or prevent even a small subset of these cases, the impact could be tremendous.'
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
- elif 2y agoIf there is no scientifically meaningful finding there is nothing to write about. You may as well write "do unicorns go around sprinkling Alzheimer's healing dust at night?" It's an open question, surely worth writing about and getting people's attention on right? No? Right because scientifically meaningful distinctions are the only way to understand underlying scientific process. This is not philosophy class.
- Mordisquitos 2y agoIs there tantalising evidence suggesting that unicorns may go around sprinkling Alzheimer's healing dust at night? Have scientists who were previously sceptical of the unicorn-Alzheimer hypothesis now become open to the possibility? Are clinical trials that may provide evidence in favour the causal effect of unicorns on Alzheimer's currently taking place? That would very much be a very interesting news article, and I hope it is published.