John's defenders have done this in the past, but I'm stunned that he'd stoop to the same. Science doesn't work like that, to say the least. Gideon's degree status is irrelevant and in the entirety of my career I've never seen this issue raised in a scientific paper before.
-
Show this thread
-
The condescension and hypocrisy here is mind-boggling.pic.twitter.com/ppaLt4nt9T
28 replies 72 retweets 1,121 likesShow this thread -
And as for non-PhD authors? I wrote four papers as a PhD student in which no author had an advanced degree. Theor. Pop. Biol., Phil. Trans. Royal Society, PNAS, Genetics. Cited 86, 116, 178, and 214 times respectively. Maybe they're all crap, but not b/c of my degree status.pic.twitter.com/VVV8js7Les
15 replies 55 retweets 1,109 likesShow this thread -
Anyway, you can read it for yourself. It's published in the journal for which Ioannidis previously served as Editor in Chief. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554 … Therein John claims the IFR for COVID is 0.15%. By official counts, 0.166% of the US population has already died of COVID.pic.twitter.com/NhEI15BhhI
98 replies 145 retweets 1,235 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @CT_Bergstrom
100% agree this is no way to conduct a scientific discussion. I hope this logic is extended. For example, people keep dunking on EFD because he has a "nutritional epi" PhD. I do think he's wrong (quite often) but because he is wrong, not that he lacks just the right credentials.+
4 replies 1 retweet 44 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @CT_Bergstrom
My issue with EFD’s credentials is that he presents himself (or at least makes no attempt to be clear) as an infectious disease expert; his credentials aren’t *why* he’s wrong, of course. But he shouldn’t misrepresent the fact that he’s a well-I formed layman in ID.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Credentials are relevant to discussions of public trust in dissemination of information. They’re a proxy we use for expertise. Scientists should be clear.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That said, “this guy doesn’t have a PhD so he’s wrong” is obviously a risible argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Dr24hours @CT_Bergstrom
Of course. My point (gingerly lest it be misunderstood as personal) is that "epitwitter" does a large amount of this (not directed at Carl) without noticing that, to the outsider, it looks very similar AND there are experts with right credentials and really wrong assertions, too.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
"He's just a student" is the sign of a weak argument and attempt to gatekeep in the worst possible way, and it's terrible especially coming from someone who's obviously, well, wrong. No disagreement.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
The broader point I'm making is that this is actually a fairly common practice without perhaps self-awareness on how it looks, and this may be an opportunity to see how it does look from the outside—but nobody likes hearing that so I say my two cents and kinda leave it there.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @CT_Bergstrom
Yes indeed (and no fears about it being taken personally - I’m in AA. I don’t do that anymore.
)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Academics/scientists SUCK at recognizing and/or honoring the boundaries of their expertise.
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.