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
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
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.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @joshcnicholas
To me it's more that studies can't be read in isolation - a single study, in the right context, can give you solid backing for factual assertions. But it has to be in the context of a broader area of knowledge
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @joshcnicholas
An example: my favourite study was done by Usyd on paracetamol for acute lower back pain. It was a flawlessly executed RCT, and it basically proved that paracetamol is worthless as a treatment for this problem
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @joshcnicholas
There was a large body of evidence questioning paracetamol's use in certain situations, many subjective reviews indicating that it might not work, and then they did a simply superb study and provided incredibly strong evidence for their conclusion
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
I have never read up on this, but it sounds fascinating. When it comes to sports, I am the least knowledgeable person around lol
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.