OK, I'll admit I probably come across a little blunter than that, but one of my angles is usually, "Do you have a source you trust for more info?" The very discussion taking place in this thread is one of the reasons I'm often looking for info that has hopefully been vetted by people more knowledgeable than myself.
"Ooooo, I really like this and wish to learn more! Can you teach me, or maybe you have some favorite books or web sites? I'm off to give google a workout on this topic!"
Dave Burton wrote:"We do not know why, and that's okay. We have plenty of empirical data that demonstrates a pattern we can reduce into a usable equation. All that really matters is we found something that we can do stuff with."
paul wheaton wrote:I think there is a big difference between "i came to my position thanks to these whitepapers" and "this whitepaper says you are wrong."
With one, we are sharing. With the other, we are suggesting that somebody on permies is less than perfect (wrong).
Quite simple really.
Dr. Richard Horton, current editor of The Lancet wrote:“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
Dr. Marcia Angel, past editor of The New England Journal of Medicine wrote:“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”