Timeline for References are not always necessary
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.health.stackexchange.com/ with https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 11, 2015 at 18:58 | comment | added | Count Iblis | The issue is that for general health issues not related to pathological issues, good references in the medical literature will tend to approach the problem from a wrong, pathological, angle, leading to possibly stupid conclusions. Medical science is notorious for getting some issues systematically wrong over many decades due to this approach. | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 8:05 | comment | added | anongoodnurse Mod | "If I had written down something completely stupid but backed up by refs than such answers would have gotten many upvotes." Two observations: 1. if something were completely stupid, you'd have difficulty in finding good reference, and 2. Critical readers can usually spot bad answers, even those with (usually bad or, as mentioned before, misinterpreted) references. The lack of references is only one of a number of possible reasons for DVs, though you'd have fewer DVs if you did cite references. | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 17:40 | comment | added | JohnP Mod | @Dr.Duncan - Reductio ad adsurbum. Well played. | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 17:21 | comment | added | Dr. Duncan | Wow, That answers a lot of questions, @JohnP. The entire model of this site is based upon a logical fallacy and mob rule. So, all I have to do is write things that people want to hear, then I'll be popular enough to exert power over other users. Thank you. | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 17:11 | comment | added | Count Iblis | Note that may of my answers were downvoted mainly because of a lack of refs. If I had written down something completely stupid but backed up by refs than such answers would have gotten many upvotes. | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 17:10 | comment | added | Count Iblis | @JohnP the main paradigm of medical science is flawed when it comes to general health issues as it relates to healthy people with no significant health complaints. There is not just a "few flawed studies" there are big holes in the entire field. The fundamental problem is that biological plausibility arguments are going to be disfavored. While there is some discussion about that in the literature, the main paradigm is still the same. That doesn't mean that references are alway worthless, just that the requirement of backing up everything one says in every instance is over the top. | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 16:52 | comment | added | JohnP Mod | @CountIblis - So, because a few bad studies have made into peer reviewed journals, that invalidates every published study, and we should just blindly trust what people say? If you feel an answer uses a study that is flawed or erroneous, you are welcomed, even encouraged, to post an answer that refutes it and shows why it is bad. To me, that is much more valuable than a bunch of random stuff with no corroboration, as it would expose and educate. | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 16:50 | comment | added | JohnP Mod | @Dr.Duncan - Argumentum ad populum is the model that all stack exchange sites work on. The community upvotes good answers, downvotes bad ones. On meta, downvotes indicate disagreement with the proposal. Currently this proposal has 3 downvotes, against 35 cumulative upvotes on whether or not to require references. Currently the Count has 22 answers with a collective -14 score, which indicates the community does not believe the majority of his answers have merit. | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 16:37 | comment | added | Dr. Duncan | @anongoodnurse argumentum ad populum isn't the most prudent course either. | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 23:11 | comment | added | anongoodnurse Mod | @CountIblis - The community doesn't get it..." When at odds with a number of knowledgeable people, it is not always the most prudent course to assume everyone else is wrong and you're right. | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 22:48 | comment | added | Count Iblis | The community doesn't get it, they ignore the fact that a lot of bad science has made it into the peer reviewed journals and that there is a lack of research on some very relevant issues. The requirement of references leads to a false promotion of certain ideas. It's better to be honest, if no references are given and you give your own reasoning for a position, as then it's very transparent that what you say follows only from what you've written, you don't invoke another authority. | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 21:36 | history | answered | JohnPMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |