2 Comments
Oct 5, 2021Liked by David Shane

There is a problem, where people link to and discuss the preprints of studies as though they are definitive and determinative of the science. I'm not a scientist, but my understanding is that preprints are rough drafts: they often have quality problems, and they haven't gone through peer review to guard against those problems. (Relevant article from January: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/01/20/pandemic-brought-new-attention-preprints)

People circulate the preprints on social media; usually they will highlight whatever pieces of the findings confirm their opinions. The preprints get received as "the science" by the non-scientists. None of us consuming all these quick summaries of the preprints have time to follow up and read all the final papers that come after the preprints. Meanwhile, the scientists have their own confirmation bias, and certainly many of them active on social media are campaigning for a specific set of Covid policies.

Expand full comment