Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.2K

In terms of academia, a source like Nature is considered La Creme de la Creme. If you can pick apart an academics argument using Nature as a reference then you've pretty much knocked a leg off of their 3 legged soap box.

The second exercise is understanding the terminology. Nature is good with terminology and reading it can sometimes be an exercise in understanding technobabble. You've got time, read it carefully and any expressions you don't understand look them up. If you are part of the master race then this is not above your intellect, but you may have to break down the expressions to make them more digestible. If you're finding it too hard to read then get gud scrub.

So, pop quiz: Based on current events and reading this review, tell me what issue you can spot from it. (Hint, it's mentioned in the introduction and and based around time periods.)

In terms of academia, a source like **Nature** is considered La Creme de la Creme. If you can pick apart an academics argument using Nature as a reference then you've pretty much knocked a leg off of their 3 legged soap box. The second exercise is understanding the terminology. Nature is good with terminology and reading it can sometimes be an exercise in understanding technobabble. You've got time, read it carefully and any expressions you don't understand look them up. If you are part of `the master race` then this is not above your intellect, but you may have to break down the expressions to make them more digestible. If you're finding it too hard to read then `get gud scrub`. So, pop quiz: Based on current events and reading this review, tell me what issue you can spot from it. (Hint, it's mentioned in the introduction and and based around time periods.)

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (55).
[–] • 2 pts

It is a good aim. People always link to articles citing some study. Like total shit articles with low IQ takes on studies. Link to the study! Read the study!

The study is an oft highjacked vehicle for data shenanigans and statistical fuckery. If you get used to reading the studies skepitcally you can develop an eye for the fuckery. They design and frame the experiment in ways that are most beneficial to their agenda.

If you think about how you would perform a similar study and find that you would collect or report different data, you have to ask yourself— why have these people not collected or reported this data? Why are they excluding useful information they are likely to have? Alot of scientists are just whores for government and corporate money. Its often easy to see their game.

I should say there’s also some good studies out that that offer good data that rarely get publicized by the MSM, but you can glean a lot of truth from the coversation that scientists are having with each other within their own industry literature compared to what they publicize through MSM.

[–] • 0 pt

I hope it's a good reason for people to start being more critical and look into the shit and not be reliant on the news to tell them what to think.

Everyone here is potentially 100 times smarter than any news presenter that just reads a paper in front of a camera and doesn't care if its true or not - they just have to sit there and look 'pretty'.

If people can find a good source and use it to discredit the point being made, find the flaws and point out the kikery, understand good methodology and not just accept what they're reading at face value it could add a lot to this community.

[–] • 0 pt

I spent quite a bit of time knocking down Hydroxychloroquine studies last year. Im like a hydroxychloroquine expert now. I will know exactly what to do if malaria breaks out in the northeast US.

So many of these studies are just retrospective studies and meta-analyses with terrifically biased data and so many unknowns. They just wave a bit of propensity scoring in your face and call it a day.

[–] • 0 pt

One thing I really dislike is that they're not objective. I can understand that people need to song and dance their ideas, touting them as the best thing since sliced bread for funding reasons - but it means they focus on the potential pros too much and maybe dedicate a short abridged line to the consequences, not properly philosophising the reason why there in a discussion.