> i don’t think qualifiers like ”weakly”/“strongly” get in the way, but they do show just how uncertain most effects actually are. "Most" seems to caused by se

> i don’t think qualifiers like ”weakly”/“strongly” get in the way, but they do show just how uncertain most effects actually are. "Most" seems to caused by selection bias. There is new areas where knowlegde has to be established first. Theories can be created, and experiments defined to confirm or reject them. But it takes time. That's the realm of fast tracking results the original article is about. The temporary results will be replaced later. Covid is such a case (even if ethics may get in the way of some experiments). "Most" of science is like this. Then there's areas that cannot be verified by experiment. Probabilities are useful there, too, even more so, because they will persist long-term, even if there is consensus. Main examples are climate (no control group of earths to conduct experiments on) and cosmology (no control group of universes).