|
so:text
|
The DID problem is an example of arguing from a vacuum. The argument is basically that if one type of procedure does not work, then something else will. Well, perhaps nothing will work, or perhaps the only reason we observe that something did not work is that we were ignoring the cases in which it did—often because, for some very compelling social reasons, they never come to our attention.
I have discovered this argument from a vacuum often in the context of various “critiquing” studies of statistical versus clinical prediction. There is one overwhelming result from all the studies: When both predictions are made on the basis of the same information, which is either combined according to a statistical model or combined “in the head” of an experienced clinician, the statistical prediction is superior. (en) |
