smerel > scientific peer reviewed paper about something that can’t be proven true with a clear cause and effect
thanks, this seems to pointing out to the issue at hand. A lot of emerging information is indeed coming first from data science rather than bio experiments, and science seem to have a better handle on experiments than on handling data. And given how often statistics is indeed misused politically, the low level of trust I think is justified. Maybe, the standards will evolve. It is a criminal offense to forge financial statements, an academic offense to fake a biological experiment, even a cyber attack will soon be considered a war act, but mis-using statistics is still a “gray area” indeed.
We do need to catch up, as many decisions are now inevitably done based on such data, especially when time is of essence, like vaccine roll out. I was struck reading an article by a retired vaccine developer who says at the end “if I were a President, I would make sure high schools be well trained in one subject”. I expected him to say biology or public health, but he said “statistics”.