Birth control, abortion and unwanted pregnancies.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-16-2016, 03:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Here she is analyzing data from a single chart. The data from the first qoute "makes sense" because it confirms her bias. The data from the second quote is dismissed because it doesn't confirm her bias citing "very limited data" and we have no idea if this is just "random variation."

If she is going to reject the data because it is limited and random variation, she has to reject all the data for the same reason. You can't accept the data you like and reject the data you don't like. If she is going to ignore the limitations she cited when analyzing the data she liked she has to do the same with the data she didn't like. She isn't objective at all. It's blatant conformational bias and while she has some valid criticism on the limitations of the study, ultimately she undermines her credibility so severely her overall critique can't be taken seriously. If you have doubts about the study, you should have bigger doubts about her critique. 

I don't see it as her rejecting data, though. She mentions it and while she tries to explain it away as a "we don't know why", I don't see it as a total rejection.

In any event, if one little thing like this is enough to throw her whole critique out, then shouldn't you be doing the same for the study she's critiquing? She may be biased, but as you even admitted, she has some valid criticism. So if you're standard is "one problem=throw the whole hting out" shouldn't you be doing that for the original study as well?