Recent content by Lynch101

Thanks jedishrfu. Have you come across anything in any paper or even interview which outlines it like that. My reason for fact checking myself is that it came up in a discussion and I was trying to find a reference for my outline of FT.

Cheers Frabjous.

Yep, that's the deeper question. Have you seen a reliable source for that definition of fine tuning, or where it is used in a paper?

This isn't intended to be a discussion of the philosophical "fine tuning argument", rather, I'm hoping to fact check myself as to what is meant by "fine tuning" in physics. My understanding was that fine-tuning is the process in which parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in...

The studies weren't rated as poor because they weren't RCTs, there were other methodological flaws which got them the "very low" quality rating, issues such as lack of long term follow up. Despite not being RCTs, they could still have been rated as "moderate" quality, or even just "low...

It is in the genre of philosophy but deals with naturalism in the context of fine tuning, with reference to the multiverse hypothesis. It's more the structure that I think might need work or "filler" in terms of context, I'm just not sure what I would need to add to bring it to a publishable...

Are academic ghost writers a thing? I've written a paper on the fine tuning argument, defending naturalism and while the arguments are sound (I would say that) it's not really up to a publishable standard. I worked with an editor but he really only did some copy editing, so I was wondering if...

Cheers Dullard, that is my interpretation of it as well*, but there are attempts to discredit it. *That there isn't enough reliable data [upon which to base serious medical interventions].

Cheers. I'll have to read some of the low quality studies in more detail. I've had a look at the NICE* reviews of them. I share your suspicions, that the review is fair (to a relatively high degree) and that the critics are biased. I'm in discussion with one such critic who is a researcher, who...

As far as I know, it's a widely accepted standard. I guess good or bad, the nature of objections isn't so much with the particular system used but more whether it was followed or not.

Apologies, I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean you don't consider the GRADE system to be very rigorous?

Ah yes good point. I think some people are objecting to the exclusion of low quality studies because they think those studies would support a particular narrative.

I would completely agree with the answer to your rhetorical question. There have been (what I believe are) spurious objections to the report, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. For the report a number of peer-reviewed, systematic reviews were commissioned. [Some of] those reviews...

Does anyone know if excluding low quality studies from the synthesis of results, in a systematic review, is bad practice?

Thanks for re-opening it. I'm purely interested to know if the methodology of the review is robust, so the discussion could potentially be limited to principles of systematic reviews. I think the report is robust, but I've read criticisms of it and am interested to hear from the PF community...