3 ms·
Because it's peer reviewed science and has the data, as opposed to opinions in an interview.
by benrapscallion 13y ago
Because it's peer reviewed science and has the data, as opposed to opinions in an interview.
- tokenadult 13y agoA preliminary research study finding is often a WORSE source than a newspaper article about the same finding, for some of the reasons laid out by LISP hacker and Google director of research Peter Norvig in his online essay "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation."[1] A journalist who uses Norvig's essay as a checklist, or who happens to interview other scientists who think that way as a matter of habit, can also find a lot of errors in journal articles that pass even the high standards of peer review at Science.[2] [1] http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/the-case-study-of-arsenic-life-how-the-internet-can-make-science-better/259581/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/the-ca... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/category/arsenic-life/#.UtnClRDnbGI http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/category/arsenic-life...
- benrapscallion 13y ago@tokenadult The irony of this is not lost on me, because you quote a non-peer reviewed blog post to justify non-peer review blog posts over peer reviewed articles.