News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality. Parent comment

Re:Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduc... by mrangle on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @01:42PM (#35443326)
This post is an amalgam of barely formed thoughts followed by..."but fight a class war". It's nonsense from beginning to end.

Why is critical data "populist"? Why is undamaged institutional trust your goal? Are institutions inherently trustworthy, or is it that they aren't but should be presented as such? Why are you concerned with the literacy of the audience rather than the content of the article? In your mind, why is is every author's duty to present two arguments (which is not a research mandate, the article being a research summary presented in popular article format).

Anointing "experts" is not how science works.

Again, the article being equivalent to a research abstract and research being the basis for science.

We removed science from the unquestionable "expertise" of the Church many centuries ago. At which point we placed in the hands of research and its critique.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduc... by hayst4ck on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @03:14PM (#35444568)
If I wrote an article saying something like: "Experts warn bias towards availability in CAP theorem risks your data." and a newspaper printed it, how would you critically analyze that?

> Anointing "experts" is not how science works.

Anointing experts is literally how science works. People submit papers to journals which are then critically reviewed by peers (experts) who are anointed by the given journals.

[ Parent | on HN ]