I notice he is 100% confidant of several conclusions in “the gender pay gap”, and that he thinks that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But apart for that, it seems fairly rational.
He argues that the absence of evidence is primarily because you can’t control for relevant factors. If you don’t have evidence because you can’t control for the relevant factors absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I notice he is 100% confidant of several conclusions in “the gender pay gap”, and that he thinks that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But apart for that, it seems fairly rational.
He argues that the absence of evidence is primarily because you can’t control for relevant factors. If you don’t have evidence because you can’t control for the relevant factors absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.