I think “FACTS” depends on many things, one important one being the type of science & evidence. For example, water = H20 is a scientific fact that doesn’t rally require a JUDGEMENT. However, applied science eg. epidemiology, is different. The science here is based on judgementhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1323741608542531585 …
-
-
It’s rare. Because it’s rare where evidence = policy in such a directly transposable way. That’s due to evidence/science that relates to policy = applied. And applied science is very value laden - two experts can come to very different interpretations (as you know). /2
-
What is key in this situation is clarity of the data & methods with which one has arrived at their judgment - so that we (and potentially policy makers though I doubt that happens much), can review these judgements. That is what good EBM is fundamentally about IMHO.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.