Smells like EA. The "Evidence stance" measure in particular, which purports to gauge a study's rigorousness as a simple percentage, is rank pseudoscience.

▲

mlyle 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> which purports to gauge a study's rigorousness as a simple percentage

That's not what it does.

Some of the studies showed a causal relationship clearly. Some showed merely an association with a plausible argument about why it was mostly causal. You can decide what proportion of the unproven effects to include.

In reality, there's more causal effects than those that are proven, but not all of these measured associations are causal.

▲

mattgrice 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's just trying to visualize bang for buck. Not science, much less pseudoscience.

EA ended up getting coopted by people who weren't interested in altruism at all but that doesn't seem like this.

	▲	xhevahir an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's an arbitrary metric that creates an illusion of rigor. That looks to me like an instance of the quantitative (or McNamara) fallacy, and a pretty typical application of pseudoscience.