|
|
|
|
|
|
by sternocleidom
2968 days ago
|
|
|
I cited my scientific qualifications to demonstrate that I am uniquely positioned to assess the quality and scope of the scientific research we are discussing and - crucially - the interpretations thereof. Most on HN lack the background knowledge and training to usefully interpret a review article like this, let alone a journalistic simplification. Yes, I cite "thoughts from my own mind", a mind which has spent years researching this theme. You're wondering why I don't cite any articles contradicting the claims of the review article? That's because this paper already cites many published peer-reviewed works, only to dismiss their findings. You'd know this if you actually read the paper and had the background and training to properly interpret it! It's an interesting review. The main idea of the paper is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly when thinking that strenuous exercise can increase risk of short-term illness. The authors point out some logical and mechanistic fallacies of past studies. I take issue with the interpretation that most people will have after reading - that strenuous exercise will not increase risk of getting sick. I know firsthand that this is not the case in truly elite athletes. But, for many people this may be true. It's important to be specific however, when discussing scientific matters, which is why I contributed my thoughts |
|
|
> Most on HN lack the background knowledge and training to usefully interpret a review article like this, let alone a journalistic simplification.
It seems like you can't help but belittle the audience you're replying to. It comes across as if you're saying "I'm the elite academic talking down to all of you plebs." You may have some good ideas but your tone and arrogance suck. And I think you'd be surprised by the "academic qualifications" of many of the people on HN. Many in this audience are perfectly capable of understanding the article. You're not "unique."