Comic Strips

20741 readers

3929 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
!memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lawrence@lemmy.world

894

Debate (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 week ago by klingerd@lemmy.ca to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The real problem is that “actual scientific journal” 's quality control is shit too.

Good thing they referred to a meta-analysis, which is near the top of the hierarchy of evidence. Most of the scientific research articles nowadays are hyperlinked. They aren't appeals to authority: the entire purpose of the article is to present their work, data, & findings (ie, evidence).

[–] it_depends_man@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

the entire purpose of the article is to present their work, data, & findings (ie, evidence).

I know, that that is the claim, that's what I'm attacking. They're garbage at doing this. There is no agreed upon standard of doing it. and because they are so utterly shit at it, all that is left is the appeal to authority, because "our methodology works".

(And if I'm wrong, point me to the template and standard formatting that was agreed upon. Show me the standardized procedures that meta analysis studies have to pass to be considered "acceptable".)

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They’re garbage at doing this. There is no agreed upon standard of doing it. and because they are so utterly shit at it, all that is left is the appeal to authority, because “our methodology works”.

Not really: most research of any credibility openly shares its data either upfront or on request. The argument isn't "I did this right, trust me, bro", it's "here's my methods & data supporting my analysis & conclusions: check for yourself or even redo it all". Reproducibility (verification of findings) & replicability (same findings with new data) is the standard: once that's done (researchers can communicate to clear up methods or miscommunication), the issues to do that had been cleared up & don't really matter anymore.

A meta-analysis takes in a body of independent studies that replicate findings & analyzes them together to reproduce results, so it addresses both standards.