Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://aus.social/users/justanotheramy/statuses/113507594522895962">Just Another Amy (justanotheramy@aus.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 17:22:46 JST</a><a href="https://aus.social/@justanotheramy" title="justanotheramy@aus.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/285746-48-20241006072005.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Just Another Amy" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Just Another Amy</a><div><a href="https://aus.social/@justanotheramy/113507579162837144" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a><ul><li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/248666" title="erici@social.sdf.org">Eric Ireland</a></li></ul></div></section><article><p><a href="https://social.sdf.org/@erici">@erici</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/@camwilson">@camwilson</a> <br>I should hope not — and no, it doesn’t. What we’ve mostly seen is a collection of studies using correlation to force causation, which was precisely the thrust of the original criticism.</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/4002667#notice-7870243">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-11-19T17:22:46+09:00" title="Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 17:22:46 JST">about 2 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/notice/7870243" rel="external" title="Sent from gnusocial.jp via ActivityPub">gnusocial.jp</a></span></span><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/notice/7870243">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3521141">I am not saying that academic debates are settled by counting up the number of studies on each side, but bringing so many studies together in one place gives us an overview of the available evidence, and that overview supports three points about problems with the skeptics' arguments.</a></label><br><a href="https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/584/197/298/617/original/8ac78dcf7242a785.jpeg" rel="external">https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/584/197/298/617/original/8ac78dcf7242a785.jpeg</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Just Another Amy (justanotheramy@aus.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 17:22:46 JSTJust Another Amy
in reply to
- camwilson
- Eric Ireland
@erici @camwilson
I should hope not — and no, it doesn’t. What we’ve mostly seen is a collection of studies using correlation to force causation, which was precisely the thrust of the original criticism.
In conversationabout 2 months ago from gnusocial.jppermalink
Attachments
1. I am not saying that academic debates are settled by counting up the number of studies on each side, but bringing so many studies together in one place gives us an overview of the available evidence, and that overview supports three points about problems with the skeptics' arguments.
  https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/584/197/298/617/original/8ac78dcf7242a785.jpeg

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice