They then expanded the search to millions of sequences, which are publicly available, and found ~30k different classes(!) of Obelisk elements. One could argue that the quality of each of these "experiments" may not be as good as IHMP, but still, the signal is more than sufficient to clearly demonstrate the existence and implied significance of these elements.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No doubt there are valid concerns but the value of comments formed by internet clichés and dismissive tropes is... lower than what we want here. When it comes with a tone of entitled aggressiveness, that's even worse—that's enough to drive away the people who spend their lives working on a subject, and that would be the worst possible outcome for HN.
I think you're trying to draw a comparison here between two things of completely different category, and I feel like you might not understand how different they are.
I think you’d be better served by trying to understand how psychological research has been done, why people go on about replication, what results are suspect from psych, and how they developed in the first place.
Bc it seems like you’re trying to justify the actions in psych world by other disciplines, but it just doesn’t make sense.
I am genuinely curious as to how best to present the evidence. What would you like to see to tame your skeptic?
It's good to wait until replication and then 5 years to let the dust setle down.
But if the research group had group had a good past history, it's better to trust them while the other teams verify.
