4 ms·
The blog post is glossing over the details of the peer-reviewed scientific literature a bit. I'm not sure, but I believe the result has been replicated without
by rcthompson 13y ago
The blog post is glossing over the details of the peer-reviewed scientific literature a bit. I'm not sure, but I believe the result has been replicated without food.
On the other hand, I believe there is also a body of more recent research indicating that the "cognitive fuel tank" model is too simplistic to give an accurate description of how it works.
- JanezStupar 13y agoA guy went and invented calculus in something like 2009. It went through peer review process and got praised for being revolutionary. However the author was a MD. Peer-reviewed scientific literature means nothing on its own.
- rcthompson 13y agoA single peer-reviewed article means nothing on its own, but a result replicated in many peer-reviewed articles by independent authors over many years starts to mean something. That's generally what people mean when they say that the "peer-reviewed scientific literature" supports a claim or theory. However, the very common exception is when someone with an agenda abuses the term "peer-reviewed scientific literature" to describe a single article or a string of articles from a single or a few closely-affiliated sources in order to support their agenda. Of course, this is taking advantage of the true meaning of the term. See also "clinically proven".
- JanezStupar 13y agoBut the example I mentioned resulted in citations. And praise and replications and whatnot. It was still absurd and should not have happened.
- gohrt 13y agoIt was the trapezoid rule for integration, and it was wholly accurate, just ignorant of previous work.
- betaclass 13y agoThe work of Roy Baumeister shows many of these interactions. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeister#Self_regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeister#Self_regulation