This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
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.
Paper, same. I think it is that writing by hand is slow enough to make you decide what is worth recording.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
The reason best-written scientific paper is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
A digression that keeps occurring to me: the most-linked documents here are the dullest ones. Nothing gets cited like the unit-arithmetic page.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
An observation about best-written scientific paper that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.
Best-written scientific paper: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.
Science communication: if you come across an interesting science paper or article about peptides or metabolism, sharing it and discussing the idea is on-topic.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
Agreed, and the corollary is that a place with no visible corrections is not a place with fewer errors.
Best-written scientific paper looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
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.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
The practical version of best-written scientific paper is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.
Analytics first, in my case, and I still find the practice category the harder read. Chromatography has one right answer more often than logistics does.
That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.
Careful with the language on best-written scientific paper. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
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.
Lounge-level thought to close on: the measure of this place is that being wrong in public here is cheap. That is a design decision and it took work.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
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.
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.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
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.
Lounge-level thought to close on: the measure of this place is that being wrong in public here is cheap. That is a design decision and it took work.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
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.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.