3 ms·
That's an admirable sentiment, Ionannidis must be such a wonderful guy. However, the damage has already been done. He's already done his media blitz, so no mat
by knzhou 6y ago
That's an admirable sentiment, Ionannidis must be such a wonderful guy.
However, the damage has already been done. He's already done his media blitz, so no matter what happens next, effectively zero people will hear the correction (or more likely, subsequent retraction). It'll just become yet another piece of zombie information, which will appear in dishonest talking points or gish gallops. The quality of public discourse and the reputation of science will continue its decline, and we'll be talking about the next example of this tomorrow.
- statquontrarian 6y agoIf we try to be charitable, Ioannidis was too confident in his research team who made mistakes; for example: > The authors said by email that they used a built-in Stata function and aren't sure themselves how the software used the input weights. I suspect they misapplied that function (too complicated to tweet why) but I don't know Stata well enough to be sure; it seems neither do they. https://twitter.com/wfithian/status/1252692357788479488 https://twitter.com/wfithian/status/1252692357788479488 Then, Ioannidis probably didn't double check the work in depth because of confirmation bias and over-confidence in his protégés.