Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
Then why do they so routinely publish "final result"-type findings after only one step? Why, in fact, publish ANY "findings" whatsoever if the research is incomplete? Why the definitive; "'DOES' damage" blah, blah blah? Why not something like; "preliminary findings suggest that <blah> CAN damage health/sleep?
They brought this on themselves. You can't have it both ways. Either the research is incomplete--in which no "findings" should be released (or at the very least, worded in such a way that clearly states that the findings are indeed preliminary)--or the research is complete and the findings should be formally presented. No ... the only "only the first step" defense doesn't wash.
|
All research is incomplete. Always has been and probably always will be.
This particular study has a number of strong faults and makes a probably mistaken or unwarranted conclusion, but it is not that bad. The news media are overstating far more than the scientists. Since you fell asleep reading the report, maybe you should give it another go and criticize what was actually written. There are plenty of low hanging fruit there.
There is nothing wrong with (correctly designed) incremental studies and (properly derived) incremental results. And they absolutely need to be published. The news media really do need to try to stop sensationally leaping to outrageous conclusions.