RCT studies embed a wide range of assumptions - both methodological and substantive. Then we take the numbers they output, average them, and suddenly Gid thinks that's opinion-free evidence. This is what we mean when we say public health is atheoretical.https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1302027638685360133 …
-
-
Replying to @engagedpractx
I'm not saying that tho? All evidence is biased to some extent, but some academic articles are literally the opinion of one person
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @engagedpractx
I have no objections to arguments. I have an issue with one academic's opinion being presented as scientific fact in the news, especially when it contradicts the majority of expert opinions
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Right. So would you mind explaining that in ways that don't dismiss narrative reviews, analytical pieces, etc, as 'opinion'? Or overstate the extent to which even novel, independent, empirical studies are neutral and opinion-free? Because Raina MacIntyre.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @engagedpractx
I don't think it's unfair to describe a narrative review as an academic opinion piece. They can be fantastic, well-researched and interesting, but the same is entirely true of opinion pieces
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
And, I mean, I spend almost all my time pointing out the deficiencies in research? It's certainly not as if I've said "narrative reviews can be bad, making RCTs ABSOLUTE TRUTH"
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.