One of the most fascinating dynamics of this pandemic is the Twitter/media/pundit feedback cycle. (This was documented before for other topics, too.) Now, with many top scientists not as active, if at all, on Twitter—pandemic keeps them busy—it’s gotten even more interesting.
-
-
And yep, this also true. In fact, I’m struck by how similar this is to what many social movements experienced: spectacularly useful early on exactly like that, but, over time, other dynamics make it harder to get that value out of it as the other feedback cycle tightens.https://twitter.com/Busabx/status/1396468797582712843 …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It works in the literature too. Serious researchers look at Ioannidis and roll their eyes. But they have more important things to do than do formal articles disputing his stuff. So it looks like it’s accepted.
-
It’s a problem I first saw on Wikipedia 15 years ago, before the MEDRS reforms. Pedophilia advocates cited pseudo-studies claiming child sexual abuse was beneficial, but few peer-rev studies disproved their specific points b/c serious researchers didnt consider it a dispute.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.