undefined | Better HN

0 pointsckastner9y ago0 comments

Precisely.

Now imagine a publication that only presents the results of the other 3%.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

fictioncircle9y ago· 4 in thread

Using that logic, you can never trust a single doctor because you need to see 20 of them to get a balanced perspective.

Using that logic, when presented with the perspective from 20 doctors reaching two different conclusions, you present both perspectives and conclusions. Furthermore, you do not suggest whom to trust.

Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.

fictioncircle9y ago

> Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.

A second opinion doesn't require a 20 person sample size to have a a reasonable chance of landing on someone who shares your views.

There is a reason it is to get a second opinion, not 20 opinions.

The basic problem here isn't the irony you perceive but the fact literally _nothing_ in modern medicine functions if you require 97% consensus.

smsm429y ago

A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.

fictioncircle9y ago

> A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.

So your argument is scientists are equivalent to journalists who solely exist to manipulate you?

You are free to stop using a computer, taking medication, and driving a car in that case.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

fictioncircle9y ago· 4 in thread

Using that logic, you can never trust a single doctor because you need to see 20 of them to get a balanced perspective.

ckastnerOP9y ago

Using that logic, when presented with the perspective from 20 doctors reaching two different conclusions, you present both perspectives and conclusions. Furthermore, you do not suggest whom to trust.

Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.

fictioncircle9y ago

> Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.

A second opinion doesn't require a 20 person sample size to have a a reasonable chance of landing on someone who shares your views.

There is a reason it is to get a second opinion, not 20 opinions.

The basic problem here isn't the irony you perceive but the fact literally _nothing_ in modern medicine functions if you require 97% consensus.

smsm429y ago

A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.

fictioncircle9y ago

> A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.

So your argument is scientists are equivalent to journalists who solely exist to manipulate you?

You are free to stop using a computer, taking medication, and driving a car in that case.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse