There have been many noises lately about whether there should be some credentials in order to post original science claims in a research section.
Here are some relevant questions in my opinion...
1. What are the legitimate purposes of the research section?
2. What are some illegitimate purposes?
3. Can lay people understand the research literature?
4. Does it matter if nonsense is posted in the research section?
5. Is emotion a legitimate reason to criticize researchers?
Maybe anyone who is interested in what is going on in the research section can respond. Here are my answers...
1. What are the legitimate purposes of the research section?
In my opinion, the main legitimate purpose is to post relevant research in a form that is written for a lay audience.
2. What are some illegitimate purposes?
Some illegitimate purposes include:
- alternative treatment purveyors trolling for innocent victims
- lay people with obviously no training just expounding randomly
3. Can lay people understand the research literature?
Yes if they have relevant training. No if they don't. Nobody is born knowing this stuff and you can't learn it from one or several five minute google searches. It is highly unlikely that someone with no relevant training is going to contribute something valuable. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Is it obvious when someone is expounding ignorantly? Yes (to those with science training). Will it be obvious to everyone? No, not to those with no science training.
4. Does it matter if nonsense is posted in the research section?
I think it does because when you have bunnies speaking nonsense to bunnies, there is always the danger that some innocent child will suffer.
5. Is emotion a legitimate reason to criticize researchers?
No. Do we see that often in this section? Yes by lay people.
Here are some relevant questions in my opinion...
1. What are the legitimate purposes of the research section?
2. What are some illegitimate purposes?
3. Can lay people understand the research literature?
4. Does it matter if nonsense is posted in the research section?
5. Is emotion a legitimate reason to criticize researchers?
Maybe anyone who is interested in what is going on in the research section can respond. Here are my answers...
1. What are the legitimate purposes of the research section?
In my opinion, the main legitimate purpose is to post relevant research in a form that is written for a lay audience.
2. What are some illegitimate purposes?
Some illegitimate purposes include:
- alternative treatment purveyors trolling for innocent victims
- lay people with obviously no training just expounding randomly
3. Can lay people understand the research literature?
Yes if they have relevant training. No if they don't. Nobody is born knowing this stuff and you can't learn it from one or several five minute google searches. It is highly unlikely that someone with no relevant training is going to contribute something valuable. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Is it obvious when someone is expounding ignorantly? Yes (to those with science training). Will it be obvious to everyone? No, not to those with no science training.
4. Does it matter if nonsense is posted in the research section?
I think it does because when you have bunnies speaking nonsense to bunnies, there is always the danger that some innocent child will suffer.
5. Is emotion a legitimate reason to criticize researchers?
No. Do we see that often in this section? Yes by lay people.
Comment