[donogh]

I appreciate this is intellectually lazy but is there a tl;dr? It’s a clickbait headline followed by a conversation that’s, at least initially, not good at conveying context.

[gs17]

They had a guest on who has a history of surprising results published from studies with flaws in methodology (although the author of the post is clearly a little biased). The complaint is about the podcast not being very critical of her, while framing the discussion with the question “How do you know whether you should believe surprising results?”.

[8note]

The tl;dr

You should be skeptical of surprising results, and see to disconfirm them rather than accepting and repeating them at face value

[posterman]

not only is it intellectually lazy, its just plain lazy. this is hackernews, surely you've heard of artificial intelligence?