Embed Notice

@GossiTheDog @juergen_hubert @freemo @malwaretech

> “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).”

I’m not asking about the chart, I’m asking about your claim that lower US life expectancy despite higher healthcare spending is likely the product of allegedly different lifestyle choices. That was your claim, above.

> “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.”

While Max Roser doesn’t explicitly explain his methodology behind the chart—I don’t know that he didn’t normalize the data—he shares your neoliberal faith in blaming systemic effects on individual lifestyle choices.

> “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 asked you to explain your assertion and it seems that it’s based on unfounded assumptions.

> “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.”

Again, you made a positive and probabilistic assertion about a causal relationship between the chart’s results and lifestyle that you have consistently resisted trying to demonstrate.

> “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.”

That’s not at all what you said.

> “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.”

Research science is not assuming data and then assigning those assumptions a causal role.