This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Paper, same. I think it is that writing by hand is slow enough to make you decide what is worth recording.
I disagree with the framing of best-written scientific paper above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
That is true everywhere. The reference material that gets used is the material that answers a question you have at the moment you have it, and glamour has nothing to do with it.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
Before the thread moves on from best-written scientific paper — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
Two things can be true about best-written scientific paper at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
Adjacent and interesting: you might post something about nutrition, bioavailability from a food perspective, or the sociology of weight. Adjacent to this community's core but not central.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Worth separating best-written scientific paper as a question about the compound from best-written scientific paper as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
Where I have landed on best-written scientific paper, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
No notes. Posting so the count is not one.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about best-written scientific paper than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Personal stories: if you want to talk about what led you to this compound, your journey, or how the change has affected your life, the Lounge is the place for that.
Loosely related and not worth its own topic: the vocabulary here has leaked into how I read everything. I now notice when a press release gives a relative figure and no absolute one, which is most of the time.
If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.
Best-written scientific paper is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
Humour: light, relevant humour is welcome. Cruel humour targeting individuals or groups is not.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
On best-written scientific paper, I would rather understate and be corrected upward than overstate and be quoted. That is a house style here and it is a good one.
One caution on best-written scientific paper: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
Community norms: if you want to discuss how the community should work (not moderation decisions, which go in Meta) the Lounge is a place for that casual discussion.
Best-written scientific paper was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on best-written scientific paper. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Agreed, and the corollary is that a place with no visible corrections is not a place with fewer errors.
Off-topic but genuinely curious: how many people here came in through the analytics side rather than the practical side? The two groups seem to read completely different parts of the site.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
The thing about best-written scientific paper that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.