I'm no PhD but the more I read pubmed the more I realize that science truth is often a time vetted average.
The recent decade has been obsessed with truth as an road to ideal life.
I believe in local first reality now, relativistically so.
Re:Combating Misinformation
by fractionalhare on Thursday March 25, 2021 @01:59PM
(#26583357)
Online discourse would be vastly improved if everyone meticulously cited peer reviewed papers and used no other substantiation. It still wouldn't be perfect, but at least there'd be a commitment to rigor. The current status quo is telling people they're wrong, citing nothing, and telling them they "just haven't done enough research."
Re:Combating Misinformation
by readflaggedcomm on Thursday March 25, 2021 @02:46PM
(#26583863)
Maybe it wouldn't improve because people mostly argue over differing values, not differing research.
Re:Combating Misinformation
by jaredwiener on Thursday March 25, 2021 @02:05PM
(#26583421)
There's a major difference between coming to different conclusions from a set of data, with completely fabricating nonsense.
@BadMedicalTakes (https://twitter.com/badmedicaltakes) is just one quick way to see some of the stuff thats out there.
Can we at least all agree that germs cause disease, there are no nanobots in any of the COVID vaccines, and that masks are not dangerous?
The truth is never easy to ascertain. In fact, one of the highest cited papers from an epidemiologist is titled « Why Most Published Research Findings Are False ». I found it to be a good meta-analysis that could easily challenge my previous field of computer vision where often fantastical results were obtained on a data set but could not be reproduced elsewhere.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...