Hacker News Reader

This is a fair point, but for the layperson who cannot distinguish between the 30% of papers that are bad and the remaining 70% it may as well be a denunciation of all science, since they themselves perhaps cannot tell the difference.

While papers remain the main standard by which science is communicated maybe there is a place for those in the scientific community that do know to be more vocal about which papers are worth reading.

View on HN

This is something that people have to accept: the target audience of scientific papers is other researchers, not laypeople. Ideally we need more effort spent on synthesis of prior research. In my field (ML) very few prominent researchers write overview papers summarizing state of the art even over last few years. There is little academic incentive in doing so. Laypeople should read books written for them (like Hawking's books), not bleeding edge research papers.

The problem is deeper than this, though. All of the "scientific method" theory which is meant to ensure reliable results applies only to experiments and observational studies. Syntheses are just prose - there's no particular reason you should have confidence in a synthesis if you don't think the author shares your values or it contradicts something else you strongly believe is true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com