Why Principles Outlast Tactics

What has been corrected on this page?

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 29 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   Corrected 2 statistical errors in real, well-known studies: Prasad et al.'s 2013 Mayo Clinic Proceedings medical-reversals study had its denominator garbled (the article said 40 percent of all 2,044 articles tested an established practice, when the real figure is 363 articles, or about 27 percent, with 40.2 percent of that subset - 146 practices - found to be reversals); and Derek de Solla Price's 1963 scientific-growth doubling-time figure was narrowed from his real 10-15 year range to an incorrect 9-13 years.

   What the page claimed

   Article cited two real, verifiable studies with statistics that were garbled or narrowed from their actual published figures.

   What was corrected

   Corrected the Prasad et al. statistics to the real study's actual funnel (2,044 total, 363 tested an established practice, 146 or 40.2 percent were reversals); corrected de Solla Price's doubling-time range to his real 10-15 years.

   Why: Geoffrey Stone's Perilous Times citation on First Amendment doctrine verified as accurate.

   View the full record →

Who checked this page?

1 contributor has checked "Why Principles Outlast Tactics" on When Notes Fly. Each name below links to that person's public CitePep profile, where every contribution they have made is listed with the exact change they proposed.