Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Skeptical Science IS other sources. They don't do any research, each article is just a summary of actual research. Not liking it is like not liking Wikipedia, both are intended as starting points for digging into a topic, not an end authority.
|
Like it or not, Skeptical Science makes an argument on the research conducted, which Wikipedia does not. They are very clear in their attack on research and do so by examining the base underpinnings of the research and making sure it meets the methodology discussed in the paper, or points out where it the research is not consistent with methodology. This is one of the things I find most interesting and enjoyable about the site. It takes the research and makes people look at whether it really complied with its own claimed research methodology. Research is only good if it is reliable and consistent, and that is only achieved through consistent application of the methodology identified in the paper itself.