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

▲

bcjdjsndon 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Simply saying a confounding variable was missing isn't helpful because it's impossible to control for all confounding variables

That's the problem with studies though. My point is why defend something so ardently when we all agree it's shit but the best we have?

	▲	estearum 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Uhh... there's a truly gigantic gap between the shit end of "has confounders" and the good end of "has confounders", and locating where a particular study lands on that spectrum is a foundational skill to evaluating virtually any factual claim you'll ever encounter... I am advocating for people to identify that there's a spectrum instead of just saying "oh well, every study is imperfect" which diverts attention from understanding in what particular ways is it imperfect.