3 ms·
On the whole though you would agree progress has been made, right? In a world with imperfect knowledge you do the best you can with the information you have.
by cykotic 3y ago
On the whole though you would agree progress has been made, right? In a world with imperfect knowledge you do the best you can with the information you have.
The response to a paper ought not be, “This paper is bogus because they didn’t control for all variables.”. If the paper is bogus then give reasons for why this is the case. Was the statistical analysis wrong? Are there reasons why this can’t be true? Is this new information worthy of further investigation?
It’s sloppy thinking to say it’s a bad paper without having studied the issue and the data.
- foxyv 3y ago> This retrospective study used mortality data assembled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Retrospective studies are fairly rife with poor science. They are heavily limited by the data collected and can be easily manipulated by changing different controlling factors. While I wouldn't describe the paper itself as bogus. The title certainly takes a lot of liberties.