Health Technology Assessment hailed Crawley's FITNET application as from a "strong team"

[joshualevy]

The CBT/GET proponents are mass producing papers of dubious quality, creating misunderstanding rather than understanding.

So the papers that A.B doesn't like are "mass produced" while the ones he or she does like are not.

Not really. Most scientists know which are the significant publications and what is good work.

So the papers suer9876 likes are "significant" while the ones he or she does not like are not.

The more poor quality research she pumps out, the 'stronger' her team is?

So the papers Esther12 dislikes are "poor quality" but the ones she likes are not.

Basically, the whole point of science is to try to use objective measurements and publications to minimize personal biases. If you start out thinking one side is right, and then just choose that's sides papers as "significant" while the other side's papers you call "mass produced" or "poor quality", that just shows which side you are on (and which side you were on before you saw any data, anyway). In a sense, you are making subjective complaints about her work, ignoring the objective data.

 

[A.B.]

So the papers that A.B doesn't like are "mass produced" while the ones he or she does like are not.

I'm saying this because they are actually producing a large amount of poor quality studies. There isn't much else to say. We can discuss individual papers if you have doubts or would like to understand my point of view better.

Edit: or read PACE team response shows a disregard for the principles of science http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317700886

Basically, the whole point of science is to try to use objective measurements

Funny, the disregard for the need of objectivity is one of the main problems with studies by the CBT/GET proponents.

This is all a joke and some subtle trolling, right?

 

[Esther12]

So the papers Esther12 dislikes are "poor quality" but the ones she likes are not.

Basically, the whole point of science is to try to use objective measurements and publications to minimize personal biases. If you start out thinking one side is right, and then just choose that's sides papers as "significant" while the other side's papers you call "mass produced" or "poor quality", that just shows which side you are on (and which side you were on before you saw any data, anyway). In a sense, you are making subjective complaints about her work, ignoring the objective data.

LOL - so Joshua Levy doesn't think that people can take the time to read papers carefully, identify problems and then justifiably describe them as "poor quality"?

What objective data do you think I am ignoring when I raise concerns about the poor quality of Crawley's work?

 

[user9876]

So the papers suer9876 likes are "significant" while the ones he or she does not like are not.

No my point is that in a scientific community people are capable of judging the good work and the work that is good is widely respected. I've also heard comments saying people have published a lot of papers made as a bit of a joke because it suggests that they have just got their name on lots of work.

Academics need to play a game to publish lots but no one is that naive to really think it is a measure of quality. Even those listing papers now rank the places they are published and will look at publications in tier 1 places.

 

[Demepivo]

Crawley's papers are more social science than medicine. Eg looking at social factors, income of patents & their families. Is it any surpise that any family with an ill child is going to be under severe stress?

There are endless subjective questionnaires reviewed by cronies in behavioural, psychosomatic & psychiatric journals.

 

[Demepivo]

If the Cochrane Review process wasn't so flawed, I would suggest them doing a review of EC's work