Thanks for taking the time to post; I like seeing people share experiences like this on the Forum as well as on Facebook.
--
Iâd recommend against titles that use an all-caps âNOTâ when the postâs conclusion is highly uncertain; readers are likely to get the wrong impression before they look at the post, or even after theyâve read the post (titles are easy to remember).
--
I donât have any opinion of SENS, but it seems like a strong adjustment from âyes, donateâ to âprobably donât donateâ would be better off coming from a deeper investigation (e.g. âthese two key papers have mistakes X and Yâ or even âI surveyed 50 experts and found that 90% of them thought SENS was approaching the issue incorrectlyâ). Conversations at a conference seem like pretty weak evidence against someoneâs scientific work unless they are extremely damning (e.g. âthis person faked the data for a major studyâ) or represent a strong consensus within a community with solid credentials and past achievements.
(I donât know from this post how many people you spoke with, what their positions are, or how successful theyâve been in their own work on ageing.)
I suspect that even de Grey wouldnât claim that SENS was at all likely to âsolve ageing on its ownâ, or that his organization is among the first to really study aging (though if he did, that would push me somewhat away from wanting to donate, as a sign of massive overconfidence). Maybe his TED talk proves otherwise, but Iâd guess that his true argument is something like âaging research gets less funding and attention than it should, compared to other types of health researchâ (for a post that makes a similar argument, see Sarah Constantin).
I agree that Sanjayâs claim was pretty strong based on his evidence (this kind of hyperbole is more at home on Facebook), but surveying 50 experts seems extreme. I think hearing the views of 5 key experts would be enough to shift my opinion.
I agree that hearing the views of five key experts would be enough; by âsurveyâ, I literally meant something like a poll or survey with a well-worded question about de Greyâs work that ended in something like a yes-or-no answer (though 50 might still be extreme).
Itâs hard to tell from this post how âkeyâ the experts who spoke to the author were, or how seriously theyâd studied SENSâ research agenda and past publications (vs. mostly knowing about de Greyâs beliefs through his TED talk and other brief summaries).
Thanks for taking the time to post; I like seeing people share experiences like this on the Forum as well as on Facebook.
--
Iâd recommend against titles that use an all-caps âNOTâ when the postâs conclusion is highly uncertain; readers are likely to get the wrong impression before they look at the post, or even after theyâve read the post (titles are easy to remember).
--
I donât have any opinion of SENS, but it seems like a strong adjustment from âyes, donateâ to âprobably donât donateâ would be better off coming from a deeper investigation (e.g. âthese two key papers have mistakes X and Yâ or even âI surveyed 50 experts and found that 90% of them thought SENS was approaching the issue incorrectlyâ). Conversations at a conference seem like pretty weak evidence against someoneâs scientific work unless they are extremely damning (e.g. âthis person faked the data for a major studyâ) or represent a strong consensus within a community with solid credentials and past achievements.
(I donât know from this post how many people you spoke with, what their positions are, or how successful theyâve been in their own work on ageing.)
I suspect that even de Grey wouldnât claim that SENS was at all likely to âsolve ageing on its ownâ, or that his organization is among the first to really study aging (though if he did, that would push me somewhat away from wanting to donate, as a sign of massive overconfidence). Maybe his TED talk proves otherwise, but Iâd guess that his true argument is something like âaging research gets less funding and attention than it should, compared to other types of health researchâ (for a post that makes a similar argument, see Sarah Constantin).
Seconded on title, enjoyed content but title felt click-baity and misleading, especially given 90% of readers will only read the title.
I agree that Sanjayâs claim was pretty strong based on his evidence (this kind of hyperbole is more at home on Facebook), but surveying 50 experts seems extreme. I think hearing the views of 5 key experts would be enough to shift my opinion.
I agree that hearing the views of five key experts would be enough; by âsurveyâ, I literally meant something like a poll or survey with a well-worded question about de Greyâs work that ended in something like a yes-or-no answer (though 50 might still be extreme).
Itâs hard to tell from this post how âkeyâ the experts who spoke to the author were, or how seriously theyâd studied SENSâ research agenda and past publications (vs. mostly knowing about de Greyâs beliefs through his TED talk and other brief summaries).