11–20 of 28 posts
It's called "serious science" but its articles don't even cite sources for their claims. So it's actually less serious than wikipedia. Why should anyone use this over wikipedia?
Does the phrase "cite source troll" exist?
[1] http://www.bigbible.org/blog/2008/05/citation-nazis-get-u2_0...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be our high priest caste of "scientist" from which all knowing is given. We needn't evidence or studies, people, the 'scientists' said it is so. (FWIW, not a commentary on source link, just on parent comment)
That's what science is. Stuff said by scientists, often referring to other stuff said by other scientists before.
Your description says you are a neuro-scientist. So science is just something you say? If you say it, it is true? Or do you usually try to provide supporting documentation? Show statistical evidence and provide the parameters under which such figures were gathered? Encourage others to reproduce such results rather than merely relying on 'stuff you said'?
In this age research fraud run amok I think "its science cuz scientists said it" is a particularly dangerous viewpoint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what science is. Stuff said by scientists, often referring to other stuff said by other scientists before.
I can't think you really believe that to be true. Your description says you are a neuro-scientist. So science is just something you say? If you say it, it is true? Or do you usually try to provide supporting documentation? Show statistical evidence and provide the parameters under which such figures were gathered? Encourage others to reproduce such results rather than merely relying on 'stuff you said'? In this age r…
It's called "serious science" but its articles don't even cite sources for their claims. So it's actually less serious than wikipedia. Why should anyone use this over wikipedia?
A better comparison would be one with mainstream science journalism.
It's called "serious science" but its articles don't even cite sources for their claims. So it's actually less serious than wikipedia. Why should anyone use this over wikipedia?
There is nearly no way for a PI (head scientist) to cite everything that they say. Knowledge at the forefront is cobbled together from little whispers, tastes of failed experiments, hearings-ons from colleagues, intuition, guesses and literally decades of thinking. And so when speaking abstractly (as these videos are), they are often less wrong than anyone else (Clapper, this is how you use that term...). If you were to press them on specifics, they would become mostly correct and dig up where they got that nugget of wisdom, though simultaneously losing much of the power of generalization. In that sense - the generalities are always slightly suspect, but of far greater quality than anyone else's generalities. And usually the generalities you'd like to hear about from the cutting edge are those that there is no consensus about anyway.
So in that respect, I'd say the generalizations of cutting edge scientists are usually the least wrong, rarely perfect, always insightful, and nearly impossible to source. They are the tenuous 'hypothesis' writ large to which their career is attesting. Citation of such is nearly a moot point, as no generalizable experiments yet exist.
On the other hand it'd be a great resource if they listed to the side a paper or review about some of the stuff they just spoke of. It'd be trivial for them to name a paper or two that they find dominating their perspectives here.
It's called "serious science" but its articles don't even cite sources for their claims. So it's actually less serious than wikipedia. Why should anyone use this over wikipedia?
I don't think this is a serious question here . On the other hand, I think it's an intriguing question in general. There is nearly no way for a PI (head scientist) to cite everything that they say. Knowledge at the forefront is cobbled together from little whispers, tastes of failed experiments, hearings-ons from colleagues, intuition, guesses and literally decades of thinking. And so when speaking abstractly (as the…
Great idea! We'll put it unto the to-do list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is a serious question here . On the other hand, I think it's an intriguing question in general. There is nearly no way for a PI (head scientist) to cite everything that they say. Knowledge at the forefront is cobbled together from little whispers, tastes of failed experiments, hearings-ons from colleagues, intuition, guesses and literally decades of thinking. And so when speaking abstractly (as the…
>it'd be a great resource if they listed to the side a paper or review about some of the stuff they just spoke of. Great idea! We'll put it unto the to-do list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it'd be a great resource if they listed to the side a paper or review about some of the stuff they just spoke of. Great idea! We'll put it unto the to-do list.
And as a spur to kick scientists in their own rear, I'd also link to their own lab websites. It might be a bit of a shit-show at first, but we/they really need to get with the times, and this is a good place to start.
I kinda want this as a Podcast. Or do you monetize exclusively via YouTube? PS: Also the "subscribe" page can, for now, just link to the youtube channel. At least I could subscribe there.
I'll watch how you guys evolve closely.
Good job.