Timeline for "Checking" an already very reliable source
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 14, 2020 at 12:13 | history | edited | LangLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 234 characters in body
|
| Jun 25, 2020 at 15:03 | comment | added | Joshua | @DJClayworth: There are people who benefit from reopening despite the plague and there are people who benefit from keeping the lockdown. The debate lines mostly follow the who-benefits or who-is-closer-to-benefitor rather than a rational breakdown on how dangerous the plague is. | |
| Jun 25, 2020 at 12:58 | comment | added | DJClayworth | @Joshua I have no idea what you are talking about. | |
| Jun 24, 2020 at 23:22 | comment | added | Joshua | @DJClayworth: A most unfortunate example, because the lockdown debates are actually about something else that nobody wants to say out loud. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 16:09 | comment | added | DJClayworth | Appeal to authority has mixed opinions as to its validity. But it becomes necessary when the people having the argument are not capable of handling the complexity of the underlying arguments. Should we do lockdown for Coronoavirus? I'm not able to debate the effectivness of the models that led the experts to say we should, but if it's a choice between Joe Q RadioPundit saying we shouldn't and all the epidemiologists saying we should, that resolves the argument for me, whatever abstract logicians say about me following a fallacy. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 14:04 | history | edited | LangLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 135 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 13:51 | history | edited | LangLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1389 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 13:12 | comment | added | LangLаngС | Where we differ: as part of an A, that is a valuable 'hint', source monitoring is important. In that case now, it looks more like "I am not dignifying this 'skepticism' with a proper answer but remind you to never question authority again. Trust your masters and obey." To be clear: "Yes, that's world class" and 'that's it' is an amplified pure fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". While we do that here indeed (too much actually), an answer that simply stops there is not an answer, but instead an arrogant anti-science aberration. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 13:00 | comment | added | DJClayworth | The other reason I believe that answers just using the cited article should be valid is that the questioner might not know that the cite is from a top class journal. So the question becomes "I saw this claim made in something called Nature - is it true?" and the answer is "Yes, Nature is a world class peer reviewed journal." | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 8:11 | comment | added | LangLаngС | @Fizz Indeed. This Coronyboogy is a problem, everyone working from 'preprints' and often lousy studies when in print. Do we have a task force that re-reads all these As here to re-check the refs&srcs? Or really for all our stuff? Srsly, I know it's a nightmare, but it seems needed. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 7:44 | comment | added | future of civ6n is ass3d | "Just re-using the 'data' from the question is itself and merely stating, "yep, seems legit" is quite unsatisfactory." Indeed: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/47583/… And when it comes to Covid studies... NEJM article pulled comes to mind. retractionwatch.com/2020/06/04/… And we did have qs on reput. studies before skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39705/… | |
| Jun 21, 2020 at 22:54 | history | edited | LangLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1266 characters in body
|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 12:47 | comment | added | Andrew T. | @fredsbend this question has entered HNQ since June 8. I believe you know the voting problem with the HNQ where the majority of the visitors can only upvote (although the answer might not deserve downvote)... | |
| Jun 9, 2020 at 7:34 | history | edited | LangLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 291 characters in body
|
| Jun 9, 2020 at 6:29 | comment | added | LangLаngС | @fredsbend Am not saying that it has to be bad. Overall, although it comes easy to pick out some splinters. A valid outcome of this inquiry might as well praise the piece to bits. I am saying that we should not judge the book by the cover of the journal and that we should have a slightly different approach than Mr Oliver "…and this is true". You know "trust, but verify" | |
| Jun 9, 2020 at 4:55 | comment | added | user11643 | As much as I like your idea, DJ's unsatisfactory answer has 30+ upvotes. I saw the number, did a few quick calculations and concluded "it's well within the possible realm". That, plus knowing this community will vote answers like DJ's to the moon while ignoring ones you suggest should br given leads me to want to close. In other words, ask a more interesting question. | |
| Jun 8, 2020 at 23:32 | history | answered | LangLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |