Re:Cause And Effect: A New Statistical Test That Can Tease T...
by _delirium on Saturday December 20, 2014 @01:27PM
(#8777397)
I think with science that can be a dangerous preference, because of the tendency of the general-interest articles to overstate (and/or incorrectly state) the results. This one is better than most, especially compared to the junk that comes out of university press offices. But it still somewhat oversells the result compared to the more modest claims of the paper. The paper's introduction and conclusion are pretty accessible, imo, and a better representation of the findings than the Medium blogpost is.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Cause And Effect: A New Statistical Test That Can Tease T...
by dang on Saturday December 20, 2014 @04:38PM
(#8778026)
That's why I said "tends to prefer". There's no rigid policy—it's a lot of case by case, and feedback from HN users makes the biggest difference in deciding them. You may be right on this one, but it's a marginal call, and the HN comments have clarified the situation quite a bit either way.
There is indeed an industry based on blowing scientific findings out of all proportion, and we do a lot to keep most of that at bay. But the solution isn't as simple as always linking to the papers, and there's no hope of keeping HN immune from this systemic dysfunction, only of correcting its worst excesses.