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
There's definitely an enormous misunderstanding generally about what statistical significance means, and what it doesn't. Similarly with risks/odds ratios and the like. People love figures, even though a lot of the time they're totally meaningless
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
That's also very true. People see a single study as some sort of indelible proof, separate from the many theoretical anchors that actually hold it all in place
- 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.