1227
submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's the thing though, outside of studies published in journals where you look up their ranking and it's high enough that you trust the peer review, how do you tell the difference between imperfect and flawed in a way that renders the conclusion useless to your use case? It's not a rhetorical question, that's what I'm saying requires deeper knowledge and where you should not trust it alone without having qualified help review it for you. And without the help, yeah it's just as well to go without.

[-] teichflamme@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

If the study has major flaws it's relatively easy to spot if you have an idea what to look for. You don't need special education for that.

It's not even a problem if you consider reputable sources in the first place, which, again, is relatively easy to do.

Looking at the alternative, even a flawed study is better than a simple opinion piece.

So yeah, I disagree with everything you said basically.

[-] AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You disagree with my statement that is not actually contradicted by anything in your statement, apart from your open acceptance of flawed studies?

My question then is this: what do they teach kids to allow them to spot flaws and what do they teach them as the method for determining who is reputable? Beyes theorem? How to control for multiple variables? I don't actually know whether they go into this or tell kids to JUST trust an authority.

Flawed studies have done all kinds of harm over the years before being retracted. Linking vaccines to autism for one.

[-] teichflamme@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

You disagree with my statement that is not actually contradicted by anything in your statement, apart from your open acceptance of flawed studies?

Because your statement offers no viable alternative and basically condemns following scientific literature unless you are a trained professional on the grounds that some studies might be flawed.

Which is what I tried to point out in both of my prior comments to no avail.

My question then is this: what do they teach kids to allow them to spot flaws and what do they teach them as the method for determining who is reputable? Beyes theorem? How to control for multiple variables? I don't actually know whether they go into this or tell kids to JUST trust an authority.

That question is impossible to answer. Even if we were only talking about the US, but much less globally. What we can agree on is that it's probably not enough in most places.

Flawed studies have done all kinds of harm over the years before being retracted. Linking vaccines to autism for one.

And the attitude of "one study has been flawed so I won't trust science ever again" is something that you predict to be a better viable alternative?

this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
1227 points (98.4% liked)

News

35821 readers
1920 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS