it varies from field to field, but in general around the 10 year mark is when the probability that a specific study is likely to be disproven becomes greater than the probability that it's results will hold. in some fields that have lots of attention/researchers or rapidly changing methods/tech, it's much shorter (look at how quickly the scientific evidence on mask effectiveness with airborne virus transmission turned over during corona). scientific shelf-life is real and one of the reasons why consensus among many studies is considered better evidence than individual studies.
I suppose that's fair and more up to date studies are preferred, but to be massively downvoted for linking a study from 2003 feels very strange. That's not a very old study and everything in it is maintained today.
it varies from field to field, but in general around the 10 year mark is when the probability that a specific study is likely to be disproven becomes greater than the probability that it's results will hold. in some fields that have lots of attention/researchers or rapidly changing methods/tech, it's much shorter (look at how quickly the scientific evidence on mask effectiveness with airborne virus transmission turned over during corona). scientific shelf-life is real and one of the reasons why consensus among many studies is considered better evidence than individual studies.
I suppose that's fair and more up to date studies are preferred, but to be massively downvoted for linking a study from 2003 feels very strange. That's not a very old study and everything in it is maintained today.
Yeah, def shouldn't be downvoted just for that