Important point: something can be "evidence-based" and still not be perfect Arguing that something is not "evidence-based" when it very clearly is merely makes you seem disingenuous and/or ignorant
Definitely. My usage of words varies widely from audience to audience; I often say things in my blog that I'd get excoriated for in scientific papers, but whether something is a "fact" or not is one of the hardest things to decide
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It's weird, because I sometimes swing either way. On the one hand, you see studies that have found basically nothing being touted as the most amazing thing ever, but you also get really cool, interesting findings ignored because they aren't communicated well enough
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.