I agree about credential-shaming, however, note my second paragraph, which was "failing that , did you..."
I feel the same thing about programming. Do you have an education? Failing that, are you experienced with and do you follow the practices accepted by the industry?
Likewise, I also point out that not doing a thorough review of the literature, but only reviewing part of the literature is a bad practice when arguing against the consensus reached by people who review all of the literature and data.
It was totally up to the author of that comment to say, "Yes, I am an epidemiologist." Or to say, "No I'm not, but I subscribe to the following journals and have read 82 results, here they are."
Nobody needs to have credentials for anything in my book, but if someone doesn't have them, the onus is really on them to show that they reached their conclusion via method and rigour.
Otherwise, they are really, REALLY vulnerable to unconscious bias, which means that I am not willing to give their conclusion much weight, even if it seems supported by the results they choose to cite.
First, that was not what they said. They do help but it was said don’t buy N95 cus supply shortages. That’s fixed now, so point 2) Things change. Data changes. Why is changing your mind and admitting mistakes a sin now? I’m not a lemming.
I think that’s the real issue here, an inability to accept change or recognize nuance
We have enough problems dealing with the noise without the ignorant and uninformed jumping in with their convenient hot-takes. I _am_ going to credential-shame them, because this is not a time when we need to listen to idiots and amateurs -- it is time for those people to sit down and shut up.
I agree about credential-shaming, however, note my second paragraph, which was "failing that , did you..."
I feel the same thing about programming. Do you have an education? Failing that, are you experienced with and do you follow the practices accepted by the industry?
Likewise, I also point out that not doing a thorough review of the literature, but only reviewing part of the literature is a bad practice when arguing against the consensus reached by people who review all of the literature and data.
It was totally up to the author of that comment to say, "Yes, I am an epidemiologist." Or to say, "No I'm not, but I subscribe to the following journals and have read 82 results, here they are."
Nobody needs to have credentials for anything in my book, but if someone doesn't have them, the onus is really on them to show that they reached their conclusion via method and rigour.
Otherwise, they are really, REALLY vulnerable to unconscious bias, which means that I am not willing to give their conclusion much weight, even if it seems supported by the results they choose to cite.