Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dylan Selterman's avatar

My favorite pieces are your critiques of researchers and other science journalists who are either doing shoddy work or overclaiming based on the available evidence. Ideally this could be tied into a thoughtful epistemology. How do we know when evidence is sufficient to strongly support a claim? What is a good evidentiary threshold? What makes for a good empirical test of a theory or hypothesis? How do we know when we've reached a point when something is settled and no longer needs rigorous debate?

Casey Wike's avatar

>At some point before the relaunch, I’m also going to solicit input from my subscribers about what they want to see (or don’t want to see)

most of the value i get from this substack is you rolling up your sleeves and dissecting the studies behind stories in the news (doesn't have to be gender stuff) and stress-testing the claims made by the people who publish the study.

i strongly feel that researchers have mal-incentives around their scientific endeavors, and that these mal-incentives distort the conclusions about what the research actual says (or does not say).

so if you're looking to maintain or increase subscriptions, a possible method for doing so is to apply your talent for "deconstructing research narratives" more broadly to other topics in the news.

17 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?