Hacker News Reader

Comment by 7MinOfTerror | Hacker News Reader

If you don't understand their methodology, you probably shouldn't be attempting to critique it.

Why is it that internet forum commenters think they're qualified to examine the work of professional researchers who have spent years if not decades studying in their field?

Edit: y'all are totally right, apparently a teenager who hasn't even completed their bachelors (in AI/CompSci) is qualified to read a public health research paper because they "demonstrate an understanding of statistics."

This is functionally indistinguishable from mothers who jump on the internet and think they can read, interpret, and critique research papers on vaccines. "THIS PAPER DOESN'T CONSIDER THAT MERCURY IS TOXIC!!!"

View on HN

If you don't understand their methodology, you probably shouldn't be attempting to critique it.

There's an implicit assumption in your comment that the methodology is good, and that anyone who criticises it must be unable to see that. Have you ever read the story "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

No. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to people who are educated professionals in their field who have presented research that likely withstood some level of editorial and peer review....over a random internet commenter who starts their comment with "I don't understand their methodology" and then proceeds to attempt to critique it.

I should have been more clear. By saying "I don't understand their methodology," I was hedging around the statement "their paper does not contain an adequate explanation of their methodology due to the nature of the complex systems they are modeling. By omitting information on how they constructed their controlling variables (and indeed the full scope of what variables they controlled for), the authors (perhaps inadvertently) cast doubt upon the conclusions they draw from their results."

Actually SSRN is a preprint server, so this has not been peer reviewed.

Has anyone ever told you that you can disagree with another person without taking an indignant and rude tone?

Because there are statistics, and there are bad statistics. Indeed, only professionals are qualified to make studies, but anyone having at least a basic understanding of probabilities and statics can point out a badly thought out one.

The rest of gp's post exhibits good understanding of statistics. I suspect they're actually more qualified than "internet forum commentator". And it's good to be honest about what you do/don't understand, the fault could be in the explanation...

Understanding statistics does not mean you understand science or public health or research.

"It wasn't explained to me, therefore it is invalid" is not valid.

Well... A. Perhaps this “Internet forum commentator” has more relevant experience than you understand, B. You don’t need to have years of scientific study to understand statistics and C. Plenty of bad science gets published every year in journals.

Tell that to reviewer #1 and see how far it gets you.

You could be the worlds best expert on X but a highschool student with some basic statistics could easily invalidate the experts conclusions.

And the highschool student would be right, and the expert would be wrong.

It doesn't matter how much of an expert you are if your conclusions are wrong because you don't know statistics.

If anything, an "expert" like that is actually a complete fraud.

Because internet commenters do not have other incentives at work like getting a grant or being tenured.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com