Re:No, I won't read your amateur Covid-19 “research paper”
by sorum on Monday May 04, 2020 @05:09PM
(#23073280)
> [...] excuses to avoid evaluating the argument on merits, maybe you should rethink what you're doing.
I think his argument still holds: experts having made mistakes doesn't change the fact that you are unlikely to be able to evaluate based on merits in the first place. Unless you are an expert in the field, you're highly unlikely to know enough about the other research out there which is valid, applicable and could contradict the findings; you're not capable of proper evaluation.
Re:No, I won't read your amateur Covid-19 “research paper”
by bachmeier on Monday May 04, 2020 @12:34PM
(#23070087)
> Yes you can. For example, if there's a lot of chatter in favor of reopening, you could find a thorough summary of arguments in favor of reopening - much like the article you're complaining about! - and do your best to evaluate it on merits.
What about those of us that have a job?
Yes you can. For example, if there's a lot of chatter in favor of reopening, you could find a thorough summary of arguments in favor of reopening - much like the article you're complaining about! - and do your best to evaluate it on merits.
> I don’t know if he’s evaluating the data correctly, or if he’s ignoring other relevant data that doesn’t support his conclusion.
Then you'll have the same problem with writings by experts. They have written plenty of articles with basic mistakes, see for example the Santa Clara serology study [1] and the takedown by Gelman [2]. Knowing a bit of math, I rechecked the calculations and figured out that Gelman is correct, even though he isn't an epidemiologist. If you use "context" and "motivations" and "heuristics" as excuses to avoid evaluating the argument on merits, maybe you should rethink what you're doing.
[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v...
[2] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...