The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
and then this is really the key one and this is the one that would really distinguish the high performing students from the others you have to go back at the end and ask whether or not the conclusions the major conclusions drawn in the paper are really substantiated by what they found
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I want to figure out what is the question they're asking what's the general question what's the specific question and I write down the question
those four questions really form the Cornerstone of teaching undergraduates and I think graduate students as well of how to read a paper
my process is always the same and actually this is fun because I used to teach a class when I was a professor at UC San Diego — called neural circuits and health and disease and it was an evening course that grew very quickly from 50 students to 400 plus students and we would do exactly this we would parse papers — and — and I had everyone ask what I called the four questions
you have to go back at the end and ask whether or not the conclusions the major conclusions drawn in the paper are really substantiated by what they found and what they did and that involves some thinking it involves really you know spending some time thinking about what what they identified