As someone with experience in this field (and plenty of skepticism of geographic association studies), I find the article lacking. Is there a technical write-up?
It is quite odd that the authors say that they don’t know if the original method can yield negative results. Some of the results are expressed as relative risk, so there’s a numerator and denominator. That should be enough to begin to work it out, since all possible exclusive numerators sum to the denominator. It feels like if you don’t understand whether some areas will be lower than average, then perhaps you don’t understand the method sufficiently.
It sounds like they reverse engineered the original method, but that means they could be applying an overfit model and getting spurious results that the original wouldn’t give.
That’s all speculation, hence we need the technical write up.
Any criticism of the reproduction of the paper’s methodology should go right back to the original author, because the original author of the paper did not adequately document the methodology used. Then when asked directly to provide the methodology, the authors did not provide the methodology.
A cornerstone of valid science is reproducibility. Even if the original author’s methodology is sound, we cannot know because we cannot reproduce it, ergo, it’s basically bunk science.
When we take out all of the “both sides” political motivations driving a lot of the discussion in this thread, the glaring lack of scientific rigor falls squarely on the original authors, regardless of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it’s the responsibility of the original authors to provide that evidence, not the people providing the takedown.
chrisvls · · focus · HN ↗
It is quite odd that the authors say that they don’t know if the original method can yield negative results. Some of the results are expressed as relative risk, so there’s a numerator and denominator. That should be enough to begin to work it out, since all possible exclusive numerators sum to the denominator. It feels like if you don’t understand whether some areas will be lower than average, then perhaps you don’t understand the method sufficiently.
It sounds like they reverse engineered the original method, but that means they could be applying an overfit model and getting spurious results that the original wouldn’t give.
That’s all speculation, hence we need the technical write up.
SOLAR_FIELDS · · focus · HN ↗
A cornerstone of valid science is reproducibility. Even if the original author’s methodology is sound, we cannot know because we cannot reproduce it, ergo, it’s basically bunk science.
When we take out all of the “both sides” political motivations driving a lot of the discussion in this thread, the glaring lack of scientific rigor falls squarely on the original authors, regardless of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it’s the responsibility of the original authors to provide that evidence, not the people providing the takedown.