>>> based on an analysis of all the publicly available data This aim is not as ambitious as it sounds, because there is not a great deal of data publicly available.
Amusing and revealing at the same time. Bet they did not take long to agree on that senrence
> If you are trying to trick somebody with your data, never share the raw data; only share the conclusions. Bonus points if you can't share the data because it is somehow priviledged or a trade secret. The last thing you want is to allow other people to evaluate your analysis and possibly challenge your conclusions.
Of course, I'm not against sharing data. However, the satire here is slightly too optimistic that people, when given raw data, will attempt to verify it for themselves. When people are given plain narrative text, they can still be profoundly influenced by a skewed headline -- something which everyone here may not ever be familiar with :)
I guess I'm being curmudgeonly about this...We should all share the data behind our conclusions, but don't think that by doing so -- and an absence of outside observations -- that you were correct. Most people just don't have time to read beyond the summary, nevermind work with data.
>That being said, the biggest short-term practical consequence of this will be a stream of disturbed pseudo-scientists "discovering" things in the data.
So? Those guys have been doing that for ages already. OTOH, don't be surprised if some actual discoveries/improvements happen now, given more open access to the data.
> The fact is, most people aren't qualified to interpret the data.
so what if most people isn't qualified? Data is data, and can be used - even for crackpots who wants to use it. If these crackpots publishes something wrong, i m sure they'd be pointed out and either ignored or shunned by the publisher(s) anyway.
> , few people have the time or want to make the effort to comb through and analyze original sources.
I mean, unless it's your profession, you're not. At best, you're reading an article (with summarized data that you hope was aggregated correctly) in a journal. To the best of my knowledge, the raw datasets that those are based on are rarely shared.
> No, all the choices have already been made. The data have already been destroyed
You don't know that. You'd need an investigation to conclude that. Using it as an excuse not to investigate seems like assuming the conclusion.
Even if some data have been destroyed, it doesn't follow that every last piece of data everywhere has. Who knows what might turn out to be significant? There may well be relevant data in many countries, too, since the research was international.
Amusing and revealing at the same time. Bet they did not take long to agree on that senrence
reply