Advanced coursework in statistical methods and analysis (masters degree and beyond) is not "rare" in America. There are likely millions of Americans (certainly hundreds of thousands of us) with post-graduate education and degrees wrapped around statistical methods and modeling - which is essentially the "gold standard" for designing and understanding "studies". So there is no shortage of us who can "go there" on any particular study that is published - we are every bit as capable of spotting flaws and errors as anybody on a peer review panel. And we're far more likely to be skeptical than a "loaded" peer review panel that is interested in promoting government-financed propaganda.
But how often is the ACTUAL study available in an article citing its authority? Turns out, they're quite hard to find. Getting to the actual study itself, how it was structured, conducted and then compiled, is often quite the challenge. Search engines - like Google - are typically worthless and most of us have day jobs where we don't have hours to spend clicking around until we hit a journal with a subscription fee. We usually have to settle for a Review or Synopsis or Executive Summary, at most. The underlying study is normally not publicly available. The Feral government rarely provides links to its funded studies - government researchers not wanting the "unwashed" to have a crack at their methodology and data. Why is that? The reason is, they don't want their "authority" challenged. You're to accept whatever conclusion they've reached as having been "through the process" and that's that.
El gato malo - https://substack.com/profile/32715357-el-gato-malo - and his "gato pals" have made a cottage industry of debunking many of these "studies" that are cited by government and health care industry "experts". My hat's off to their efforts and I recommend el gato for those who want to know more about what's really going on with these "studies" we get thrust in our faces.
If a study purports "facts" and public policy is going to rely on those "facts" then the study should be publicly available and subject to public scrutiny - not hidden behind committee review and subscription journals. Let the public "crowd source" the review process and expose weaknesses. This is a place where Congress can act and get involved. No public policy should be based on hidden studies with hidden data that can't be fact-checked by the public themselves.
I look forward to your evolution/creation article.
Public opinion polls are stupid. Most people polled no nothing or just what they’ve heard in soundbites about anything.
Advanced coursework in statistical methods and analysis (masters degree and beyond) is not "rare" in America. There are likely millions of Americans (certainly hundreds of thousands of us) with post-graduate education and degrees wrapped around statistical methods and modeling - which is essentially the "gold standard" for designing and understanding "studies". So there is no shortage of us who can "go there" on any particular study that is published - we are every bit as capable of spotting flaws and errors as anybody on a peer review panel. And we're far more likely to be skeptical than a "loaded" peer review panel that is interested in promoting government-financed propaganda.
But how often is the ACTUAL study available in an article citing its authority? Turns out, they're quite hard to find. Getting to the actual study itself, how it was structured, conducted and then compiled, is often quite the challenge. Search engines - like Google - are typically worthless and most of us have day jobs where we don't have hours to spend clicking around until we hit a journal with a subscription fee. We usually have to settle for a Review or Synopsis or Executive Summary, at most. The underlying study is normally not publicly available. The Feral government rarely provides links to its funded studies - government researchers not wanting the "unwashed" to have a crack at their methodology and data. Why is that? The reason is, they don't want their "authority" challenged. You're to accept whatever conclusion they've reached as having been "through the process" and that's that.
El gato malo - https://substack.com/profile/32715357-el-gato-malo - and his "gato pals" have made a cottage industry of debunking many of these "studies" that are cited by government and health care industry "experts". My hat's off to their efforts and I recommend el gato for those who want to know more about what's really going on with these "studies" we get thrust in our faces.
If a study purports "facts" and public policy is going to rely on those "facts" then the study should be publicly available and subject to public scrutiny - not hidden behind committee review and subscription journals. Let the public "crowd source" the review process and expose weaknesses. This is a place where Congress can act and get involved. No public policy should be based on hidden studies with hidden data that can't be fact-checked by the public themselves.
Interesting. Thanks for the info!