3 ms·

It actually says "at any point in time". The title and the abstract are poorly written and the GP is deriding it which his perfectly appropriate. Not only tha

by bananas 13y ago

It actually says "at any point in time". The title and the abstract are poorly written and the GP is deriding it which his perfectly appropriate. Not only that, after reading it, it appears that the science is bollocks too. And to mention body mass in it instantly shoots all credibility.

chc 13y ago
> The title and the abstract are poorly written and the GP is deriding it which his perfectly appropriate. Without criticizing it for not including more information (which, again, is not the point), what is poorly written about the title? I wouldn't say it's a work of art, but it seems serviceable to me. It's not deceptive, offensive or so vague you don't know what to expect. > Not only that, after reading it, it appears that the science is bollocks too. There are certainly valid and substantial criticisms you could make along those lines. That is one of the many reasons I feel like deliberately misinterpreting the title and criticizing that incorrect interpretation is a poor use of time and space. I think you believe I'm supporting the article as a piece of great science. I'm not. I'm saying that nit-picking titles does not constitute meaningful criticism and doesn't increase our collective understanding of the article one iota. I feel like every science article includes some "Well, actually…" comment about the title that doesn't actually make anything more clear. I'd rather see more people tearing articles apart and fewer sarcastic comments about titles.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
Risk of death is actually a pretty common medical term IIUC. It is obviously a risk over a period of time with two end points, not over the half-line from now to infinite-future, because the second interpretation makes zero sense. It's not useful to point out that common and well understood terminology isn't perfectly precise.

by bananas 13y ago

chc 13y ago

> The title and the abstract are poorly written and the GP is deriding it which his perfectly appropriate. Without criticizing it for not including more information (which, again, is not the point), what is poorly written about the title? I wouldn't say it's a work of art, but it seems serviceable to me. It's not deceptive, offensive or so vague you don't know what to expect. > Not only that, after reading it, it appears that the science is bollocks too. There are certainly valid and substantial criticisms you could make along those lines. That is one of the many reasons I feel like deliberately misinterpreting the title and criticizing that incorrect interpretation is a poor use of time and space. I think you believe I'm supporting the article as a piece of great science. I'm not. I'm saying that nit-picking titles does not constitute meaningful criticism and doesn't increase our collective understanding of the article one iota. I feel like every science article includes some "Well, actually…" comment about the title that doesn't actually make anything more clear. I'd rather see more people tearing articles apart and fewer sarcastic comments about titles.

jamesaguilar 13y ago

Risk of death is actually a pretty common medical term IIUC. It is obviously a risk over a period of time with two end points, not over the half-line from now to infinite-future, because the second interpretation makes zero sense. It's not useful to point out that common and well understood terminology isn't perfectly precise.