6/19 Before Oct 2004, had you heard of "The Lancet"?
Yes: ....
\_ yup. There's JAMA, NEJM and the Lancet. I'm not anything like a
doctor and I've heard of them just like I've heard of Cell, Science
and Nature. Well-respected journals occasionally publish work they
shouldn't have but this ad hominem (or I guess ad magazineum) attack
because you didn't like the one article isn't working. I suggest
an ad hominem on the authors. That might work better. -- ulysses
\_ What ad hominem attack on the journal?
\_ Don't be tiresome. That's what this is, isn't it?
\_ No it isn't. The poll is whether people have heard of it,
not what they think of its quality. -emarkp
No: .
What is "The Lancet?": ...
I don't give a shit about politics, let's talk about Linux: .
\- If you had not heard of The Lancet, that says more about you
than "The Lancet" ... that is "their" NEJM or JAMA.
\_ Oh wise and noble partha, please enlighten us unwashed
masses on why we ought to be spending time reading some
medical journal in the uk?
\- i am not saying you need to read The Lancet or the
economist ... just that if you havent, that doesnt
suggest they are obscure publications. the fact that
\_ Who is claiming they're obscure?
say sephen hawking has not won the nobel prize doesnt
reflect badly on his importance as a physicist. and were
he to win one day, his reputation will not change one
bit. maybe you didn not know Yale has one of the best
law schools in the country, but this probably would not
surprise you. it may surprise you to learn rutgers has
one of the best philosophy depts around ... however that
doesnt meant rutgers/phil isnt a strong dept. "the lancet"
along with nature, science, cell, NEJM, JAMA is one of the
"standards".
\_ Actually, ed is the standard, but Partha's 100% correct.
This is just the sort of thing you should know as part of
a 100% complete breakfast, sorry. -John
\_ Well, you're wrong. I'd heard of NEJM, but I couldn't
point to any other medical journal that I'd heard of.
Just today I read an AP article about Alzheimer's which
referred to "researchers"--I have no idea where those
researchers are or if they've published anything in a
journal. -emarkp
\_ "Well you're wrong"--great retort there. The Lancet
is at least as prestigious as NEJM. I don't see why
this is so difficult--I wasn't referring to any
content, research, or names that would only be
apparent to someone with background in a given
field, only to op's apparent lack of awareness of
the existence of something that a lot of people,
myself included, find to be a fact that a well-
educated person should know of. -John
\_ Your assertion that this is something you should
"just know" has as much of a truth value as my
"you're wrong". -emarkp
\_ If you're going to pontificate on the validity
of their work, you should at least find out
who they are.
\_ I evaluated one study. Who gives a crap who
they are if they can't do their statistics?
-emarkp
\_ Well, 3 possibilities...
1. The stat work in the article isn't
shoddy,
2. The stat work in Lancet articles
is usually shoddy, or
are usually shoddy, or
3. The stat work in this particular
Lancet article is unusually shoddy.
I haven't seen anyone defend 1 yet, 2
seems unlikely, and 3 brings to mind
interesting conspiracy theories.
\_ And all I was claiming is 1. I have
no opinion one way or another on 2 or
3. -emarkp
\_ You are so right. After I google'ed "The Lancet"
I instantly felt enlightened and educated. With
years of therapy perhaps I will overcome the sense
of shame I now feel for being alive for 20+ years
w/o having heard about "The Lancet."
\_ I love how some folks, when told they don't know
something they should, immediately become
aggressively proud of their ignorance. Just google
it, accept that you're an ignorant hayseed, and get
on with it.
\_ Your assertion "something they should" is simply
wrong. -emarkp
\_ Case in point.
\_ I'm not really involved in this discussion,
but it seems to me that you've defined,
"Things a well educated person should know"
as "things I know."
\_ Another case in point.
\_ Whatever, I'd heard of the Lancet, it
just doesn't seem like that big a deal. |
http://csua.com/feed/