3 ms·
> Assuming the blood sampling is representative (which it is likely not) I can't think of anything more anti-science than dismissing data.
by infamouscow 5y ago
> Assuming the blood sampling is representative (which it is likely not)
I can't think of anything more anti-science than dismissing data.
- abfan1127 5y agohow is he dismissing data? questionable data should be treated as such... why would a linear extrapolation be a good fit here?
- rzimmerman 5y agoI think they are implying that blood sampling is not a random sample of people (more likely to be from someone who is sick), not that it is inaccurate.
- korethr 5y agoI don't think the phrase you quote is intended as a dismissal of the data. It comes across as an acknowledgement of the data's limitations, and a caution about what kind of conclusions can be drawn. During my statistics course in college, one of the first sections of the course covered sampling, and the various ways sampling can be done badly, thereby biasing the sample, and thereby leading to conclusions about the sampled population that don't reflect the reality of that population. Cautioning against that failure mode strikes me as intellectually honest, not anti-science.