Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The article has some very different findings. The crucial paragraph from the abstract is:

It's kinda funny how only the abstract is referred to when trying to paraphrase the findings of the paper. I would say that the abstract by itself is more like an opinion. The real hard data backing up the abstract, should be in the article. But, it can't even be faulted because this "science" is behind a pretty hefty paywall with 40$ for the full PDF and 10$ for a 48h rent. It's basically the same price as a full movie.



The abstract is not an opinion, it is a summary of the key methods and findings written by the authors. It is the perfect place to get a short quote to outline the main results of the paper.

Now if we wanted to investigate the methods and results in detail, we certainly would have to read the full paper, however the main findings will not differ from what is in the abstract. You might find that the methods (and hence results) are not valid, and can come up with a detailed rebuttal, for that you certainly would need to read the full paper. However, I assumed here that the findings are valid, because even though I have access to the paper, this is well outside my area of expertise so I am not well placed to investigate the claims in detail and rather refrain from that.


You are right. "Opinion" was also the wrong word. I just felt that the shortness of the abstract yields some similar dangers of details and context being lost as you have when reading only a headline. For example, one wouldn't use the valuable abstract space to reiterate shortcomings of one's method even if they are listed in the paper.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: