Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Its frustrating, but really the only way to judge the validity of a paper (and I"ve seen a lot of bad ones over the years, in my field and others that got published) is to read the actual paper, see their methods, sample size etc. To do so you need to have access (its a pain to find some of the publications) and understand the language behind it as well as the methods.
|
I need more time to reply properly here, but I agree with you whole-heartedly on this point, Ustwo. Clearly, the NY Times is not a peer-reviewed journal of any kind, which in some ways is good (because hardly anyone from the general public has access to, let alone has any inkling to read peer-reviewed journals)... general exposure to this kind of information has to happen somewhere. But yes, the average Joe or Jane is not going to know jack about the existing literature, statistical significance, methods, sample size, validity, reliability... so the work could be all wrong. Sapiens is right; there are no apparent hypotheses to be tested (again, could be due to the mass-media format).
But since I agree with most of what the article is saying, I suppose that's why I found it interesting.
Studying anthropology, one doesn't get far by assuming that morality and ethics developed from religion only... so I'm always glad to see someone questioning that often "basic" assumption (by the masses) and making people think harder about evolution and where things *really* came from. But I suppose that's my own bias.