More like “I’d rather have minimally acceptable understanding than incorrect and harmful understanding.” The reason is there are many confounding variables so

More like “I’d rather have minimally acceptable understanding than incorrect and harmful understanding.” The reason is there are many confounding variables so measuring poverty incorrectly and reaching a wrong conclusion can focus resources toward people who don’t need it (eg, single people making half the median wage who are not in poverty). I think sometimes you don’t have a choice. But in this case, there is a more accurate measure to use, so not using it makes conclusions less helpful. I think claiming things as “anti-science” is a gatekeeping function that is counterproductive. Especially when people don’t understand statistical significance and are trying to make conclusions that aren’t accurate. I don’t think things are “anti-science” or “pro-science” as these are imprecise and meaningless statements. I’m not sure what you mean by saying anti-science. But I think it’s not logical to assume something that is minimally effective is striving for perfection and something that isn’t significant is good enough.