Embed Notice

@HeavenlyPossum

You would need a citation to demonstrate that the Chilean public has a substantively different lifestyle from the American public that could causally generate such a lower life expectancy in the US, rather than just making it up.

Again no.. The burden of proof is on the author to ensure they have accounted for these possible confounding variables, pointing out they did not account for them does not mean I have to prove they would change the results, only showing that the original chart is bad-science and doesnt do any sense of normalization for confounding (a requirement to pass peer-review in data science).

Assuming something as self-evidently true without evidence isn’t how science is done, buddy.

No it isnt, but it also isnt a claim to science. It is showing that something which is self-evident wasnt accounted for by the person doing science, they not only assumed it wasnt true by not normalizing for it, it shows they didnt account for things which are highly reasonable to speculate could be an factor.

You are right, making those assumptions isnt science, which is exactly why the chart is bad science, it makes an assumption on that, and the onus is on the author not me.

I didn’t ask you about the chart, I asked you to defend your own claim, which you evidently can’t or won’t do, because the neoliberal explanation just fees right to you.

And I answered you, my claim is not meant to say “this is true” it is meant to show a reasonable explanation for the data that was not accounted for and thus showing bad science. My claim being true or not is not what makes it bad science, the fact my claim wasnt accounted for does.

While yes, my explanation does seem to be a reasonable intepritation of the data ive seen throughout my life it is not an assertion of scientific fact, it is an assertion as to why this chart is not scientific fact, and int hat regard it is accurate.

the fact that your sitting here arguing with a published professional research scientist about what is good science and not and you are defneding obvbious bad science tooth and nail says a lot about who is making assumptions here.

@GossiTheDog @juergen_hubert @malwaretech