we have a very useful shortcut for that called "listen to the experts" though
-
-
Replying to @TylerGlaiel @sohakes and
That sentiment I do object to. Saying "listen to the experts" presumes the person knows who is an expert, which is precisely the thing in question here. I point again to examples, such as "eat mostly carbohydrates" situation.
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TylerGlaiel and
As a simple example, when programming, should you listen to "experts" like Uncle Bob Martin? Bjarne Stroustrup? The average CS professor at a college?
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @sohakes and
i mean programming is a mess for other reasons and also there isnt really a "search for truth" in the field like there is in other (actual) scientific fields. for math, physics, etc I would absolutely "trust the experts"
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @TylerGlaiel @sohakes and
Well maybe we can boil this down to the fact that I think medicine is about the same as programming research - some "experts" really are, but most aren't. I wouldn't consider it anywhere even in the remote ballpark of mathematics as a field in terms of competence.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @sohakes and
I mean the fact that they run trials and experiments and look at actual statistics puts it pretty far above everything programming related
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TylerGlaiel @sohakes and
Totally disagree. The average medical trial is about as accurate as a blog post with a benchmark.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TylerGlaiel and
This is a subject where twitter is the worst possible format to discuss. Study design. Placebo. Robustness of result. Sample sizes, etc, etc. When can a study be trusted? It's a complex and interesting topic.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robertbisaacs @cmuratori and
You just cannot treat multiple gold standard double blind placebo controlled trials with intense long term surveillance with a random nutrition study in a third rate journal. Context matters.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robertbisaacs @TylerGlaiel and
100% agree. That is why I say "trust experts" does not work, because "experts" come in both flavors: those who will report only those results that are very rigorous, and those who will report any random thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Vetting is _critical_.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @robertbisaacs and
Does it count if you let someone you know that is more versed in biology and chemistry read an the studies and do all the vetting and then trust their judgment?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheDigitalShay @robertbisaacs and
I mean it kind of moves the problem one further back. In general, I would say the core skill is to learn to assess the markers of actual expertise to the extent that you can, regardless of discipline.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.