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.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @joshcnicholas
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @joshcnicholas
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
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @joshcnicholas
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @joshcnicholas
That being said, I'd say tax cuts is a perfect example of where virtually all discussion is theoretical, and the evidence is almost never actually addressed. People debate over trivialities that have long been disproven, rather than looking for factual evidence to make their case
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
But in this case, I'd argue that many of the "studies" are simply modelling exercises designed to give whatever outcome someone wants. I do take your point that the real theoretical backing is almost never explored, it's all surface mumbo-jumbo
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.