Really? I’d expect that very few questions outside of the hard sciences are resolvable given model uncertainty, the limits on running RCTs, and the limited samples available given finite population and insufficient variation regarding variables of interest.
Then why not to state exactly that position in the article ? To answer to your question i dont if you mean every possible crazy hypothesis being in the space of possible hypothesis but disagree if you mean in terms of pragmatic usefull hypothesis being well resolved. There is not a single doubleblinded RCT on smoking causing cancer as far as I know, but its pretty resolved that smoking causes cancer, agreed?
Really? I’d expect that very few questions outside of the hard sciences are resolvable given model uncertainty, the limits on running RCTs, and the limited samples available given finite population and insufficient variation regarding variables of interest.
Do you disagree?
Then why not to state exactly that position in the article ? To answer to your question i dont if you mean every possible crazy hypothesis being in the space of possible hypothesis but disagree if you mean in terms of pragmatic usefull hypothesis being well resolved. There is not a single doubleblinded RCT on smoking causing cancer as far as I know, but its pretty resolved that smoking causes cancer, agreed?