Anoop, thanks for sending this - it takes greatness of the Nobelist to reach this stage of reflection; science, education and society would be so much better off if all of us emulate this behavior.
But , to answer your question, in general, the effects of intervention should be accepted (as closer to the "truth") when its effects are greater than combined effects of bias and random error. Even well designed small studies are prone to random error, which is what Kahneman is alluding in his comments.
Hope this helps
Ben
Sent from my iPad (please excuse typos )
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Anoop Balachandran <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> A Nobel Prize-winning researcher has admitted on a blog that he relied on weak studies in a chapter of his bestselling book.
>
> http://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-underpowered-studies-nobel-prize-winner-admits-mistakes/
>
> What I don't understand is how can small sample studies be erroneous if they are of high quality?I agree the CI 's will be wide, but that shouldn't make it wrong. Any thought?
>
> Thanks
|