Positive findings are around twice as likely to be published as negative findings. This is a cancer at the core of evidence-based medicine.

Amazing things happen when you pull individual pieces of information together into larger linked datasets: meaning emerges, as you produce facts from figures.

Doctors and patients need as much data as possible to make an informed decision about what treatment is best.

I agree, the world would be a better place if doctors were less enthusiastic about adopting very new drugs.

Science has authority not because of white coats or titles, but because of precision and transparency: you explain your theory, set out your evidence, and reference the studies that support your case.

Most bloggers have no institutional credibility, and so they must build it, by linking transparently, and allowing you to easily double check their work. But more than anything, because linking sources is such an easy thing to do, and the motivations for avoiding links are so dubious, I've detected myself using a new rule of thumb: if you don't link to primary sources, I just don't trust you.

Just just because there are flaws in aircraft design that doesn't mean flying carpets exist.