Return to Answer

And only 1 being our source here and 2 the 'seemingly opposite one'. To me, that means the hunt is on…

And only 1 being our source here and 2 the 'seemingly opposite one'. To me, that means the hunt is on… ¹

¹Curiously, the source2 for that nature article was also in PNAS, has had massive feedback, corrections, letters, and now has been retracted.

In that case now, it looks more like "I am not dignifying this 'skepticism' with a proper answer but remind you to never question authority again. Trust your masters and obey." To be clear: "Yes, that's world class" and 'that's it' is an amplified pure fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". While we do that here on SkepticsSE indeed – and too much for my tastes actually – an answer that simply stops there is not an answer, that while written as an answer, is more like comment, an introduction to an answer, etc.

In that case now, it looks more like "I am not dignifying this 'skepticism' with a proper answer but remind you to never question authority again. Trust your masters and obey." To be clear: "Yes, that's world class" and 'that's it' is an amplified pure fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". While we do that here on SkepticsSE indeed – and too much for my tastes actually – an answer that simply stops there is not an answer (that is 'of high quality', that is: also not inherently flaggable as 'low quality' or 'not answer') but reads like either lower quality, that while written as an answer, is more like comment, an introduction to an answer, etc.

And here, the study in question may be good, but I would expect at least a detailed explanation of the limitations and contradictions from with the study itself or in comparison to other studies, whether earlier or later. Then a general weighing against the other studies out there, and how an answerer would criticise (or 'review as a peer') the current paper, and how other authorities have handled this specific issue. Did it receive lots of comments, was it cited approvingly or in a shady light? A hint I'd like to share: in social sciences like that one needs to take a thorough look at the foundations of that study, before swallowing a concluding soundbyte about a 'what' without ever getting to know the 'how' of definitions, limitations etc. I want to get to the 'why'. That a source is 'reliable' is 'nice', but since even the dumbest crackpot may utter a statement that is 'true', but nice sources fail us from time to time, nice is not enough.

A single appeal to authority is unwarranted. And if it is the same authority that should be questioned and scrutinised here, we achieved a lot of clicks, perhaps, but failed to promote our cause, surely.

And here, the study in question may be good, but I would expect at least a detailed explanation:

• why is it considered to be a good source
• why is *this particular paper a good one'
• of the limitations and contradictions from with the study itself or
• in comparison to other studies, whether earlier or later.
• Then a general weighing against the other studies out there, and
• how an answerer would criticise (or 'review as a peer') the current paper, and
• how other authorities have handled this specific issue.
• Did it receive lots of comments,
• was it cited approvingly or in a shady light?

A hint I'd like to share: in social sciences like that one needs to take a thorough look at the foundations of that study, before swallowing a concluding soundbyte about a 'what' without ever getting to know the 'how' of definitions, limitations etc. I want to get to the 'why'. That a source is otherwise 'reliable' is 'nice', but since even the dumbest crackpot may utter a statement that is 'true', but nice sources fail us from time to time, 'nice' is not enough.

This is not an isolated 'first' incidence at that paper, but rather a by now common theme with its own Wikipedia page: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, quoting the title of a most important Ioannidis paper.

To be clear, answering this meta-question sticklishly: I agree that we should "allow the article to be used in the answer?" — but as part of an answer, as that 'the publishing venue is known as being a quite good source' is a valuable 'hint'. Source monitoring is important. And if the paper itself is good, then we cannot be prohibited from using it as well.

In that case now, it looks more like "I am not dignifying this 'skepticism' with a proper answer but remind you to never question authority again. Trust your masters and obey." To be clear: "Yes, that's world class" and 'that's it' is an amplified pure fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". While we do that here on SkepticsSE indeed – and too much for my tastes actually – an answer that simply stops there is not an answer, that while written as an answer, is more like comment, an introduction to an answer, etc.

A single appeal to authority is unwarranted. And if it is the same authority that should be questioned and scrutinised here, we achieved a lot of clicks, perhaps, but failed to promote our cause, surely.