[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 289 KB, 540x1498, significant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14669042 No.14669042 [Reply] [Original]

Sent this to my scientist sister and she told me it's a garbage article. I asked her why and she just told me it sucks. What does /sci/ think?
https://www.commonsense.news/p/us-public-health-agencies-arent-following

>> No.14669053

>>14669042
The article contains a lot of text, but doesn't back up the main message that scientists are quitting. Only
>One CDC scientist told us
>one high level official at the CDC told us
>As one NIH scientist told us
It seems like they were just looking for an opportunity to repeat all their criticism of Covid measures, vaccine efficacy etc. Why don't they give numbers on how many people quit? Why don't they give any verifiable information?

Your "sister" is right, it's a shit article.

>> No.14669058

>>14669053
Journalistic integrity. Protect people's identity, it's standard. As for quantifying how many people left, that's never done in any company or organization. Only estimates can ever be given.

>> No.14669060

>>14669053
>Why don't they give any verifiable information?
They link to all the journal articles of the science they say. The author is also highly regarded (Google him)

>> No.14669076

>>14669058
If it's that big, then they would have something to show.
>As for quantifying how many people left, that's never done in any company or organization. Only estimates can ever be given.
They could show the countless job openings or "welcome, new member..."

>>14669060
What exactly is the topic of the article? The beginning makes it sound like the main topic is people quitting. But then it constantly diverges to criticise individual measures and they provide links for that. That's all fair, but I feel like they give citations for things that aren't the main topic.

>> No.14669084

>>14669076
Maybe finish reading the article to understand what the point of it is, before getting all assblasted over some shit you don't actually care about. If the article said 30 people quit, you'd just ask for verification like names or some shit.

On the off chance you've actually read the whole article and still couldn't understand the main point, then you're a legitimate moron.

>> No.14669135

>>14669084
If the topic isn't clear to the reader and it diverges in different details of details all the time, it's a shit article, plain and simple.
A good article gives the reader a good overview from the abstract and conclusions alone. Based on that, that, the reader should be able to make a decision if it's worth reading it or not. None of that is the case here. It's a garbage article.

>> No.14669143

>>14669135
So you're the kind of person to judge a book by its cover, then try to have a conversation about its contents (without reading it) and concluding it's shit.
>I didn't read the article so idk what it's main point is, and that's the articles fault!
My god. You're an idiot, and I mean that literally.

>> No.14669170

>>14669143
Have you ever written or even read a scientific article? Time is limited. If title + abstract + conclusions don't allow you to decide, it's garbage. It's actually rather offensive to steal the reader's time if he has to invest 15 minutes of his day only to find out that the article is irrelevant to his interests.

>> No.14669179

>>14669170
This isn't an academic journal article you fucking sperg.

>> No.14669187

>>14669143
you don't read scientific articles like a book