Goodness and badness is fundamental - it’s always in the background. It’s probably the underlying “why” of science as a whole. But it’s hard to translate into science.
-
-
Show this thread
-
It might be better to treat studies like this as implicitly testing “are walnuts good??” and laughing at their weak results as evidence to the contrary, except walnuts really are good and you don’t need science to tell you that
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
“Because [multiple comparisons correction] created a false sense of security in the minds of many who are doing what amounts to interpreting noise entrails.”http://www.themattsimpson.com/2020/01/20/a-bayesian-goes-fishing/ …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.