Sep 19, 2018 07:06 PM
https://www.lifetypestuff.com/blog/2018/...servations
EXCERPT: There is a disconnect between what scientists say they know and what they actually observe. This distortion is amplified as findings are iteratively reported, each time in less specialized publications. A telephone rings. Original findings are reported in peer-reviewed research articles. From the beginning, there are already gaps between conclusions and observations. Occasionally, these gaps are acknowledged explicitly by the authors and future experiments are described that will fill-in these gaps. Other times, gaps remain implicit and may be lamented by other scientists as a case of over-interpretation. Review articles are published in scientific journals to summarize and discuss emergent research. One step removed from the original article, conclusions are discussed and, often, little emphasis is given to the methods by which such conclusions were drawn. This effect can only be further amplified when findings are discussed in main stream media. A combination of too few scientific reporters combined with a penchant for sensationalism results in dramatic headlines that are both descriptive and unambiguous. Scrolling text; scientist finds blank to be true. I am not going to comment on whether Truth exists or whether it is accessible to scientists. In a more descriptive sense I wish to illuminate the gaps that exist between the conclusion of a scientific paper and the observations that are provided as support. It only seems fair to apply this stringency to a research article I recently published....
MORE: https://www.lifetypestuff.com/blog/2018/...servations
EXCERPT: There is a disconnect between what scientists say they know and what they actually observe. This distortion is amplified as findings are iteratively reported, each time in less specialized publications. A telephone rings. Original findings are reported in peer-reviewed research articles. From the beginning, there are already gaps between conclusions and observations. Occasionally, these gaps are acknowledged explicitly by the authors and future experiments are described that will fill-in these gaps. Other times, gaps remain implicit and may be lamented by other scientists as a case of over-interpretation. Review articles are published in scientific journals to summarize and discuss emergent research. One step removed from the original article, conclusions are discussed and, often, little emphasis is given to the methods by which such conclusions were drawn. This effect can only be further amplified when findings are discussed in main stream media. A combination of too few scientific reporters combined with a penchant for sensationalism results in dramatic headlines that are both descriptive and unambiguous. Scrolling text; scientist finds blank to be true. I am not going to comment on whether Truth exists or whether it is accessible to scientists. In a more descriptive sense I wish to illuminate the gaps that exist between the conclusion of a scientific paper and the observations that are provided as support. It only seems fair to apply this stringency to a research article I recently published....
MORE: https://www.lifetypestuff.com/blog/2018/...servations
