Fat shaming linked to greater health risks

Re:Fat shaming linked to greater health risks by grzm on Thursday January 26, 2017 @11:28PM (#13497717)

I'm confused. I understood your list of criticisms of the paper as reasons why the paper doesn't have a valid conclusion. I would expect these to be scientifically valid criticisms if they're expected to be valid criticisms of science, even if they aren't in a science journal. (My head is spinning a bit writing that.) I must be misunderstanding. Can you clarify what you mean?

(Note that my initial comment is just that the article is claiming more than 'AtheistPUA is putting forward, regardless of whether it's conclusions are valid or not.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fat shaming linked to greater health risks by cocktailpeanuts on Friday January 27, 2017 @12:40AM (#13497997)

You are not confused. you just disagree with me. That's fine. Just say you disagree.

It's funny that you think a comment on HN is equivalent to a research paper on a science journal.

You can call me bullshit if I ever publish a paper on this with above 4 items claiming this to be "science".

Well, until then.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fat shaming linked to greater health risks by grzm on Friday January 27, 2017 @12:47AM (#13498016)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I appreciate it.

With regards to calling any of your comments bullshit, I think you're confusing me with 'JoeAltmaier.

I certainly don't consider an HN comment equivalent to a research paper. I do think that an HN comment calling into question the validity of a journal article should strive for validity itself. If we disagree, that's where we do.

[ Parent | on HN ]