Yesterday 05:00 PM
https://edzardernst.com/2026/09/the-scie...g-science/
EXCERPTS: There is a species of high-profile science experts who can ... denounce a poorly controlled trial and ctitque “peer review” with the weary authority ... These experts are, in many respects, on my side.
They oppose quackery.
They distrust miracle cures...
[...] Don’t get me wrong: the lack of hands-on experience is not necessarily disqualifying. One need not be a violinist to criticise a bad symphony, nor a chef to notice that a steak is tough like a shoe. But science is not merely a collection of conclusions waiting to be inspected. It is also the tiresome business of producing those conclusions...
[...] The armchair commentator, by contrast, experiences science in its finished form. For them, a clinical trial does not take 2 years of tedious work; for them it takes merely as long as they need to read the paper...
[...] Their great gift is the ability to identify error without ever having had to manufacture a result under conditions designed to make error inevitable...
[...] Still, let us be charitable. Every scientific community needs intelligent experts and critics. But perhaps, before delivering a definitive verdict, our heroes might spend one afternoon in a laboratory or a week organising a clinical study? No, not to actually do science, only to observe and replace arrogance with humility the next time they write about it... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: There is a species of high-profile science experts who can ... denounce a poorly controlled trial and ctitque “peer review” with the weary authority ... These experts are, in many respects, on my side.
They oppose quackery.
They distrust miracle cures...
[...] Don’t get me wrong: the lack of hands-on experience is not necessarily disqualifying. One need not be a violinist to criticise a bad symphony, nor a chef to notice that a steak is tough like a shoe. But science is not merely a collection of conclusions waiting to be inspected. It is also the tiresome business of producing those conclusions...
[...] The armchair commentator, by contrast, experiences science in its finished form. For them, a clinical trial does not take 2 years of tedious work; for them it takes merely as long as they need to read the paper...
[...] Their great gift is the ability to identify error without ever having had to manufacture a result under conditions designed to make error inevitable...
[...] Still, let us be charitable. Every scientific community needs intelligent experts and critics. But perhaps, before delivering a definitive verdict, our heroes might spend one afternoon in a laboratory or a week organising a clinical study? No, not to actually do science, only to observe and replace arrogance with humility the next time they write about it... (MORE - missing details)