| ▲ | bcjdjsndon 10 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
[flagged] | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | vivekd 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I think he had a reasonable point, I don't know if he was mad or not but that doesn't take away from the validity of his statement. Simply saying a confounding variable was missing isn't helpful because it's impossible to control for all confounding variables. If however there was an important variable someone can think of, like maybe parents who control their kids phone use could also be more involved in their children's learning that could be a confounding variable worth mentioning to think about how valid the study is - but even then I don't know if that by itself would be enough to dismiss the study | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | estearum 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
What gave you the impression I'm mad? I'm providing a useful comment explaining why the answer to the zero-value "controlling for confounders right? harharhar" top Reddit comment is always "no." Unless it's a randomized study, the answer is no. But that doesn't mean it doesn't tell us information. This is helpful information for anyone who wants to transcend midwit internet snark and understand how scientific knowledge is built. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||