Oh I understand. I believe it’s a fine study. I’ve just seen problematic results of meta-studies with regards to bias with regards to choice of studies used for the meta-analysis.
shows 8440 studies. Are all of them relevant for a meta-study of this nature? Probably not.
Are 8,377 invalid for the meta-study? Probably not.
I don’t know. I’m not saying it’s an invalid study. But few things can be more easily abused than statistical analysis.
And, having been a member of a Unitarian Universalist group for a short time in my early 20s, yes, they are a skeptical bunch tongue emoticon
My point is, Steve, there’s bullshit wherever you go and when something tells you what you already believe to be true, I think it’s MORE important to be extra skeptical. Confirmation bias is a very real problem, whether in science or among the general population. To me, good skepticism isn’t just skeptical about things it already doesn’t like. It must be skeptical equally towards things it does like.
I accept very little on faith, especially on subjects prone to heavy bias.
If you disagree with my position or think I am being unreasonable, that’s ok, but I’d like to know your further thoughts either way.