The only problem is that his methodology is no better than lining up time-series data and finding spurious correlations[1]. If we did this with any other problem, we would be happy to point out the problem with this approach.
Nutritional studies have more scientific rigor than what Haidt is hocking and we're happy to point out standards of evidence. All I'm asking is that we don't alter our standard of evidence simply because we agree with the conclusion. It's bad science and a bad way of making decisions.
Nutritional studies have more scientific rigor than what Haidt is hocking and we're happy to point out standards of evidence. All I'm asking is that we don't alter our standard of evidence simply because we agree with the conclusion. It's bad science and a bad way of making decisions.
RCT advocates should have easy pickings here.
1. http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations