More specifically general relativity expanded and generalized Newton’s law of gravitation and special relativity generalized Newton’s laws of motion for high speed. We still use Newton’s theories 99% if the time because we aren’t working at relativistic speeds or in black holes.
-
-
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @jorient and
While medical reversal is more frequent than that of physics, the previous observations are still true, but may represent outliers, or regress to the mean. Hence the need for replication. Short of fraud, the data remain true, but our understanding of them expands.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @jorient and
Now how in the hell *one observation* would reverse a mature medical theory, which we know are highly dependent on replication, is beyond me and reflects ignorance about how the medical literature functions and appropriate skepticism of new results (as Ioannidis’ emphasizes).
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @jorient and
An actual skeptical physician, hearing of a single observation that contradicted a mature finding, replicated, eg for vaccines, in billions of people and thousands of papers, would tell you the far more likely probability is your n=1 observation is garbage.
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @gorskon and
What if the n = thousands, each and every one dismissed as an anecdote and a coincidence? How about denialism? See brides in the bath case: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/miller.pdf …
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Yeah your crank journal is evidence of nothing and the article is frankly conspiratorial. Not interested in the QAnon of medicine.
4 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @jorient and
I saw that article and was highly tempted to blog about it. I might just do so, given that deceptively conflating legal standards of evidence with scientific standards is a favorite crank ploy.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Well at least she acknowledged her initial argument was foolish. The “single observation” has now become an n=1000s. Granted, she can’t prove any if this, just cite crank literature that we should rely on evidence based on adversarial debate because we only prove whats funded.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @gorskon and
Some of us believe our patients and don't assume they are cranks, yahoos, or or greedy. Do you?
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Never the patients. Just the grifters like you.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
Also, believing the patient's story is not the same thing as accepting the patient's explanation for what happened. These are different things.
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.