3 ms·
Often I feel that the commentary to science has a lot of what-if pedantry beyond that which is reasonable. I am unsure how you would address this what-if issue
by JimTheMan 5y ago
Often I feel that the commentary to science has a lot of what-if pedantry beyond that which is reasonable.
I am unsure how you would address this what-if issue. It's not a variable that can be measured or controlled easily and the means of measuring that would be up for contention.
Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people make them want to be.
- nightowl_games 5y agoWithout inquisitive rigor, the hypothesis offered by the study author is also merely "what if pedantry".
- pottertheotter 5y agoGood scientific papers explicitly state what you can and cannot conclude from the data. Even if it is a case of "this is the best we can do" because there's no data to address the omitted variable, that should be clear. I have a PhD in an area where (a) it's difficult to conduct experiments, and (b) it's often hard or impossible to get data for some variables. No one likes the person who critiques a paper presentation by saying, "you're not controlling for variable x" without providing a reason why it's an omitted variable and how you can proxy for it (if it's not directly available). But you also won't get far if you aren't clear about the limitations of your paper.
- ksm1717 5y agoIf it can’t be measured or controlled then conclusions which forgo it are not valid!
- imwillofficial 5y agoPunching a serious hole in the logic is hardly “ what-if pedantry”