4 ms·
I know this isn't what you mean, but taken to the extreme, this is simply an argument against research. I think that what you mean is that people with an agend
by carbocation 14y ago
I know this isn't what you mean, but taken to the extreme, this is simply an argument against research.
I think that what you mean is that people with an agenda will point to a study with, say, a positive but insignificant effect, and say "well there is a positive effect" when they should actually say "there was no effect". In that case, I agree, but there's simply no avoiding that except through better education and more thoughtful phrasing in articles.
- SCdF 14y agoYeah, I guess what I really mean is that I can understand the want or need for curation of this kind of content. I can also understand that the curation can be done for good (let's not release this cause we screwed up and so the results are pointless and people might get the wrong idea) and for evil (as MBCook[0] said, "let's only release the one study out of 5 that proves the point which makes us the most money"). I typed the parent comment out quickly, and to be honest I'm still digesting my thoughts when it comes to this (I feel that for the most part digestion of these topics is a life constant). [0]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5099379 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5099379
- rhizome 14y agoCuration can still happen, and those curatorial outlets will gain credibility on their own terms. Information is for everybody to use, you're arguing for anti-intellectualism.