That’s the problem with social media. It enables misinformation via omission. Like in the instance of “studies”. Rarely are sample size or controls shared, or the process nor are the sponsors of the “study”.
I’m going to stop before I start ranting about my pet peeve about how untested theories are shared on social media as fact and has ruined and dumbed down our consumption of science news and information.
Ya know what’s even worse than that? People who complain about how dumbed down everything is without first even clicking on the article to see if the actual paper is linked to. Which it is.
I wasn’t talking about this exact instance. Obviously the quality of links someplace like Lemmy are going to be better than someplace like Facebook.
It doesn’t matter, the majority of people won’t click on that in the article. It’s better to just link the paper than some other writer’s opinion/conclusion on the paper. That’s another problem we have, we read other people’s interpretation of data instead of reading it ourselves, understanding it, and coming to our own conclusion.
But that also doesn’t solve the problem of quality of the research. Just because a paper has been written, doesn’t make it valid if the study is so small or methods are sketchy, its conclusions are useless.
That’s the problem with social media. It enables misinformation via omission. Like in the instance of “studies”. Rarely are sample size or controls shared, or the process nor are the sponsors of the “study”.
I’m going to stop before I start ranting about my pet peeve about how untested theories are shared on social media as fact and has ruined and dumbed down our consumption of science news and information.
Ya know what’s even worse than that? People who complain about how dumbed down everything is without first even clicking on the article to see if the actual paper is linked to. Which it is.
https://cipp.ug.edu.pl/A-desire-for-a-loud-car-with-a-modified-muffler-is-predicted-by-being-a-man-and-higher,162006,0,2.html
Cool…did you read the study? It’s a joke. This is a biased study that’s being passed off as science.
I wasn’t talking about this exact instance. Obviously the quality of links someplace like Lemmy are going to be better than someplace like Facebook.
It doesn’t matter, the majority of people won’t click on that in the article. It’s better to just link the paper than some other writer’s opinion/conclusion on the paper. That’s another problem we have, we read other people’s interpretation of data instead of reading it ourselves, understanding it, and coming to our own conclusion.
But that also doesn’t solve the problem of quality of the research. Just because a paper has been written, doesn’t make it valid if the study is so small or methods are sketchy, its conclusions are useless.