4 ms·

A good submission. The article is appropriately cautious about reporting on a preliminary research result in an animal model. That's refreshing. It helps HN dis

A good submission. The article is appropriately cautious about reporting on a preliminary research result in an animal model. That's refreshing. It helps HN discussion to submit actual NEWS articles by professional journalists rather than recycled press releases from PhysOrg or ScienceDaily. As usual, much more research will be needed before this finding could possibly be applied to human medicine, but it suggests new approaches worth investigating further.

Florin_Andrei 13y ago
So, what's a good replacement for PhysOrg?
- tokenadult 13y ago
  I was glad to upvote your follow-up question about better sources. I have not tried the Reddit group mentioned in the other reply you received, but the characteristics mentioned there sound helpful. I earlier posted a reply here on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4735122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4735122 listing some of my favorite sources for science news. If I see a link (say, from my Facebook friends) from PhysOrg or ScienceDaily, I NEVER assume that it is worth submitting to Hacker News. (Longer story about that by request.) If the recycled press release looks interesting and plausible, I try looking up the name of the study author or key words from the study findings and see if I can find a better source.
  - Florin_Andrei 13y ago
    Lots of good stuff there, thanks.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  http://www.reddit.com/r/science http://www.reddit.com/r/science is actually pretty good about calling out unscientific journalism, making it a somewhat-decent source of science news. (As long as you read the comments.)
  - dntrkv 13y ago
    I strongly disagree. r/askscience is great. r/science is not science at all. Take a look at the top-voted story at the moment: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1lruai/lsd_could_be_good_for_you_hallucinogens_wrongly/ http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1lruai/lsd_could_be... That's far from science. Half of the comments are just anecdotes.
    - sillysaurus2 13y ago
      Actually, that link proves my point. For example, this comment chain: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1lruai/lsd_could_be_good_for_you_hallucinogens_wrongly/cc25nxm http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1lruai/lsd_could_be... That's the #2 comment, and it's a link to work cited in the article. And the top reply to that comment is from a psychiatrist who gives a thorough (and thoroughly skeptical) breakdown of the science behind the cited work. I'd say that's a grade-A analysis.
      - dntrkv 13y ago
        Sure, you can find some great bits of information there, but when it comes to something like a science subreddit, you have to be very strict in moderating comments that might mislead people (r/askscience does this very well). There is NO room for anecdotes or personal assumptions when it comes to discussing scientific articles. It really is all or nothing, if you allow any non scientific-based discussion, you get something like r/space which is (was?) one of the worst subreddits in my opinion. Also, there is a huge political bias over on r/science. I see this as a huge problem with most of reddit actually, but people should forget about political bullshit when it comes to discussing scientific facts. Unfortunately, this is not the case and people begin to discuss the moralities/logistics of drug legalization rather than discuss the science presented in the article. I have gotten into many debates on that subreddit and have, attempted to, correct so much misinformation that I was just forced to unsubscribe a few months ago because of how rage-inducing it was. I'd stick to r/askscience.
    - Florin_Andrei 13y ago
      /r/askscience is infested with a bunch of literal-minded and narrow-minded individuals, with groupthinkers, and with group-up-voters and group-down-voters. Heaven forbid you use a metaphor to make an abstract concept easier to understand. It's like preaching to the "Bible is literal truth" crowd.

Florin_Andrei 13y ago

So, what's a good replacement for PhysOrg?

tokenadult 13y ago
I was glad to upvote your follow-up question about better sources. I have not tried the Reddit group mentioned in the other reply you received, but the characteristics mentioned there sound helpful. I earlier posted a reply here on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4735122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4735122 listing some of my favorite sources for science news. If I see a link (say, from my Facebook friends) from PhysOrg or ScienceDaily, I NEVER assume that it is worth submitting to Hacker News. (Longer story about that by request.) If the recycled press release looks interesting and plausible, I try looking up the name of the study author or key words from the study findings and see if I can find a better source.
- Florin_Andrei 13y ago
  Lots of good stuff there, thanks.
sillysaurus2 13y ago
http://www.reddit.com/r/science http://www.reddit.com/r/science is actually pretty good about calling out unscientific journalism, making it a somewhat-decent source of science news. (As long as you read the comments.)
- dntrkv 13y ago
  I strongly disagree. r/askscience is great. r/science is not science at all. Take a look at the top-voted story at the moment: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1lruai/lsd_could_be_good_for_you_hallucinogens_wrongly/ http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1lruai/lsd_could_be... That's far from science. Half of the comments are just anecdotes.
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    Actually, that link proves my point. For example, this comment chain: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1lruai/lsd_could_be_good_for_you_hallucinogens_wrongly/cc25nxm http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1lruai/lsd_could_be... That's the #2 comment, and it's a link to work cited in the article. And the top reply to that comment is from a psychiatrist who gives a thorough (and thoroughly skeptical) breakdown of the science behind the cited work. I'd say that's a grade-A analysis.
    - dntrkv 13y ago
      Sure, you can find some great bits of information there, but when it comes to something like a science subreddit, you have to be very strict in moderating comments that might mislead people (r/askscience does this very well). There is NO room for anecdotes or personal assumptions when it comes to discussing scientific articles. It really is all or nothing, if you allow any non scientific-based discussion, you get something like r/space which is (was?) one of the worst subreddits in my opinion. Also, there is a huge political bias over on r/science. I see this as a huge problem with most of reddit actually, but people should forget about political bullshit when it comes to discussing scientific facts. Unfortunately, this is not the case and people begin to discuss the moralities/logistics of drug legalization rather than discuss the science presented in the article. I have gotten into many debates on that subreddit and have, attempted to, correct so much misinformation that I was just forced to unsubscribe a few months ago because of how rage-inducing it was. I'd stick to r/askscience.
  - Florin_Andrei 13y ago
    /r/askscience is infested with a bunch of literal-minded and narrow-minded individuals, with groupthinkers, and with group-up-voters and group-down-voters. Heaven forbid you use a metaphor to make an abstract concept easier to understand. It's like preaching to the "Bible is literal truth" crowd.