This is the attitude that I'm trying to address.
> This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper.
Look at this discussion on HN. How many of them give references. Is their writing any less clear for it?
> The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up.
Refer to my earlier comment about accuracy and context.
reply
This is the attitude that I'm trying to address.
> This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper.
Look at this discussion on HN. How many of them give references. Is their writing any less clear for it?
> The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up.
Refer to my earlier comment about accuracy and context.
reply