Did the papers offer underlying rationales for their assumptions? For instances, due to power disruptions much more grain would be lost to rot due to poor storage conditions? Or perhaps speak to how much of the stock might be too irradiated for consumption? Or transportation issues?
I wonder about your fire example as well. Dismissing the claim that most/nearly all will sleep through a fire is so nonsensical that even a 5th grader can see through it seems questionable. Fires do consume oxygen and low levels of oxygen do put people to sleep—or make them very drowsy—so suggesting people people might be expected to continue sleeping, and perhaps fall into a deeper sleep, seems to need a stronger argument than a 5th grader doesn’t accept that claim.
No rationale was given for their assumptions. It wasn’t even analyzed. There were no justifications, just single-sentence statements for what assumptions they used. There’s a big difference between “some people die to fires in their sleep”, which makes a lot of sense, and “99% of people asleep during a fire die”, which would require extremely good justification as an assumption in a simulation. You can’t just put that in a paper with no analysis.
This was published in Nature. I’ve seen papers get rejected from impact factor 1 journals for less.
Did the papers offer underlying rationales for their assumptions? For instances, due to power disruptions much more grain would be lost to rot due to poor storage conditions? Or perhaps speak to how much of the stock might be too irradiated for consumption? Or transportation issues?
I wonder about your fire example as well. Dismissing the claim that most/nearly all will sleep through a fire is so nonsensical that even a 5th grader can see through it seems questionable. Fires do consume oxygen and low levels of oxygen do put people to sleep—or make them very drowsy—so suggesting people people might be expected to continue sleeping, and perhaps fall into a deeper sleep, seems to need a stronger argument than a 5th grader doesn’t accept that claim.
No rationale was given for their assumptions. It wasn’t even analyzed. There were no justifications, just single-sentence statements for what assumptions they used. There’s a big difference between “some people die to fires in their sleep”, which makes a lot of sense, and “99% of people asleep during a fire die”, which would require extremely good justification as an assumption in a simulation. You can’t just put that in a paper with no analysis.
This was published in Nature. I’ve seen papers get rejected from impact factor 1 journals for less.