61–70 of 122 posts
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
For comment: https://eagereyes.org/series/peer-review/1-quilt-plots
First author is now an A/Prof at one of Australia's top Universities.
I think it's important to note why the 75 citations isn't just 75 dummies who also haven't heard of integration. If you're writing a diabetes paper and want to use integration for your analysis (even if you are fully aware of its background), you'll be forced to justify your approach and defend it's applicability to diabetes. Far easier to say 'as per Tai et al...' and take it as given. You see this a lot- 'we used […
Tangental point here, but I find Medical student's relationship to Science quite fascinating. For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less in evolution than other biology students EDIT: reference to it in this story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highe...
I don't find that particularly surprising, actually! I would assume that most subfields of biology relies more on deep understanding of evolution than medicine does. Like, if you're a botanist or entomologist or whatever, you need to have a very understanding of speciation and evolutionary pressure and whatnot, more so than a doctor would (I would think, anyway).
Now, if medical students believed less in evolution than the general public, THAT would be shocking. But I doubt that is the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What frightens me is that osteopath magical thinkers (DOs) are allowed to practice medicine in the US just like MDs. They're glorified chiropractors!
Osteopaths in the UK and most other countries are quacks. Osteopaths in the US are real physicians. This is not a trick of labeling: In the US osteopath training is a science-based, rigorous medical program identical to that of an MD. Yes DOs are also trained in the historical "chiropractic"-like stuff, but most of the ones I know deemphasize that in practice.
Another bizarre example of reinvention, but unmitigated by ignorance: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... For comment: https://eagereyes.org/series/peer-review/1-quilt-plots First author is now an A/Prof at one of Australia's top Universities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What frightens me is that osteopath magical thinkers (DOs) are allowed to practice medicine in the US just like MDs. They're glorified chiropractors!
And MDs come from the historical branch of medicine that prescribed bloodletting and heroin. Now both MDs and DOs take a more modern approach. > Osteopathic medical school curricula are virtually identical to those at schools granting the MD degree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine...
Virtually isn't the same. There is no need for DOs. Period.
Tangental point here, but I find Medical student's relationship to Science quite fascinating. For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less in evolution than other biology students EDIT: reference to it in this story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highe...
> For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less in evolution than other biology students I don't find that particularly surprising, actually! I would assume that most subfields of biology relies more on deep understanding of evolution than medicine does. Like, if you're a botanist or entomologist or whatever, you need to have a very understanding of speciation and evolutionary pressure and whatnot…
By the way, the way she found the "true value" of the integral to verify her method was to graph it on graph paper and count the squares underneath.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was really on the author's side till I read these responses. Initially in my head it was just a case of misunderstanding or ignorance, but through her letters she has made clear that she thinks it is significant enough. This is borne out by her tone which is palpatably aggressive and contradictory at some points. She says she didn't publish this model for glory, but she also named it after herself. Also, no effort…
> She says she didn't publish this model for glory, but she also named it after herself. She didn't name it after herself, the users did: > collegues ... began using it and addressed it as "Tai's formula" As is typically the way with eponymous scientific works, people citing the work add the author's name e.g. Maxwell's equations or Higgs' boson. The author doesn't typically declare "I have discovered X, which I shal…
At best, a distinction without a practical difference.