News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on WikiTribune – Evidence-based journalism. Parent comment

Re:WikiTribune – Evidence-based journalism by ckastner on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @02:54AM (#14191337)
Using that logic, when presented with the perspective from 20 doctors reaching two different conclusions, you present both perspectives and conclusions. Furthermore, you do not suggest whom to trust.

Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WikiTribune – Evidence-based journalism by fictioncircle on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @12:10PM (#14194879)
> Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.

A second opinion doesn't require a 20 person sample size to have a a reasonable chance of landing on someone who shares your views.

There is a reason it is to get a second opinion, not 20 opinions.

The basic problem here isn't the irony you perceive but the fact literally _nothing_ in modern medicine functions if you require 97% consensus.

[ Parent | on HN ]