upvote
Medical professionals have a history of not necessarily having complete understanding of the maths they use in their work. Classic example of a nutritionist 'inventing' the trapezoid rule for calculating area under a curve, and then naming it after herself. And then many many other medical people unironically using said method and citing her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai%27s_model

reply
A) these aren’t “medical people”, they’re neuroscientists and psychologists. Comparing them to a nutritionist seems especially cruel!

B) “some people have been wrong before” is not a reason to think you know better than the authors of an upcoming Nature article based on a few layperson-targeted paragraphs summarizing the paper from a very high level.

reply
> “some people have been wrong before” is not a reason to think you know better than the authors of an upcoming Nature article based on a few layperson-targeted paragraphs summarizing the paper from a very high level.

Nor is "this paper is going to appear in Nature" a reason not to wonder whether there might be something that the authors don't know. The whole point of science is that anyone can make an informed critique and self-evaluation of it, with no necessity of depending on a priesthood to interpret it. You can point out the flaws in giantg2's argument https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47995899, but neither the venue of the paper, nor the fact that the argument is directed at laypeople in a forum frequented by laypeople, seems to me inherently to indicate such flaws.

reply
That seems awfully like an appeal to authority. Your parent comment doesn't just vaguely snipe, but poinys out reasons this should have been expected. Those reasons could potentially not be valid, or not present the whole picture, but "the researchers are from Stanford" doesn't rebut them.
reply