• prototyperspective@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Thank you, will look into this. I had my doubts when I first heard about this but even with these sources I still think the study is significant beyond the large attention (and that itself is also a factor). I don't think there's much doubt that "The precision of the findings, though, may be a stretch" is true which doesn't invalidate the study and like a critic said "The conclusions, she says, “though intriguing, should probably be taken with some caution and explored further."

    Also consider that I usually have 8 main tiles and two brief ones, the only other alternative main tiles this month were the dogxim, Y chromosome and astrocytes ones which could get summarized nicely very briefly at the bottom while this one should be included but was hard to summarize that briefly.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, I certainly don't mean to throw any shade on you, I was personally interested in this particular article and very wary when I saw their claim so I looked into it for a time after reading that initial popular article, but the vagueness of the research and the specific number sounded way too fishy,

      It looks like all of your tiles are confirmed science in one way or the other, and after my interest in this article I remembered it was not as solidly scientific or comprehensively significant as the other subjects you post.