[montjoy]

I want to believe you but now I have to trust your claims over what the NYT, etc are publishing. In order to do that I not only need to follow your sources but the original sources that NYT etc define to ensure they are the same. I also have to make my own conclusions about the data to see if I agree with anyone’s analysis. Frankly it’s too much to do when all I want is a few dopamine hits in the middle of the night before I can fall asleep again.

[stevenAthompson]

> In order to do that I not only need to follow your sources but the original sources that NYT etc define to ensure they are the same.

To put an even finer point in it, they're asking us to believe their blog posts over numerous large media outlets, and even above (presumably) peer reviewed research.

Anyone capable of understanding the issue of misinformation should see why that's a terrible idea, and why we shouldn't be encouraging that kind of behavior.

[montjoy]

Right. The other thing is that the parent claims to be an insider which is great- I love that perspective. However, as outsiders maybe the researchers did the best they could with what data was available to them. After reading the blog article it seems like the main thing the researchers may have had wrong is the margin of error. I don’t have a huge problem with that since science is supposed to get more accurate over time as refinements come in.

Perhaps it would have been better if the blog writer had approached the researchers and said, “Hey I read your paper. I have insider knowledge and I’d like to help you refine your model.”

[mistermann]

Herein lies the problem.