2 ms·
This isn't a question of burden but of communication. You're slinging shade but parlous little illumination here. Adjusting that balance would make for a rath
by dredmorbius 3y ago
This isn't a question of burden but of communication.
You're slinging shade but parlous little illumination here. Adjusting that balance would make for a rather more substantive discussion.
- timr 3y agoThis line of questioning always goes to the same place: it's not about educating the OP of better ways to do science, but them attempting to argue with me about whatever suggestions I make. I'm not getting sucked into it. My ability to do a "better" study is not relevant here. If you want to think I'm "wrong" because I don't, then you're more than welcome to do so. But it doesn't change the fact that most observational epidemiology is riddled with bias, and is of low quality.
- dredmorbius 3y agoYou of course cannot determine how others will respond to you, as I cannot determine how you'll respond to me. If, however, you do answer in good faith, credibly, and substantively to a specific question or request, you'll know, and fair-minded readers will generally recognise, that you've done so. Or you could, say, contribute over a half-dozen responses within the thread with roughly a quarter of them explicitly withholding or defending the withholding of that substantive contribution. Your call.