"Evidence-based" seems to end up meaning practices like NHST where there is evidence involved, but the analysis is so messed up you can conclude anything you want from it.
And its really funny they use "evidence-based medicine" as a positive example. Basically this is what we should expect to happen:
>'“Evidence-based medicine has drifted in recent years from investigating and managing established disease to detecting and intervening in non-diseases,” Greenhalgh and colleagues wrote in BMJ in June.
Furthermore, the “evidence” favoring various treatments typically comes from trials in which companies decide which drugs to test, at what doses, on how many people. Often the experimental statistical “evidence” in such studies establishes a benefit for a drug that is of little practical value; the supposed benefit, while perhaps real in a mathematical sense, is so slight as to be meaningless for real patients. In other cases, perfectly sound evidence regarding a particular disease is rendered irrelevant in patients afflicted with more than one disorder (patients who are commonly seen in medical practice, but typically excluded from the trials that produced the evidence).
On top of all that, Greenhalgh and colleagues point out, the sheer volume of medical evidence makes assessing it all intelligently essentially impossible. Even the guidelines summarizing the evidence are too voluminous to be useful to doctors.
“The number of [evidence based] clinical guidelines is now both unmanageable and unfathomable,” Greenhalgh and coauthors note. In one 24-hour period in 2005, for instance, a hospital in the United Kingdom admitted 18 patients with 44 diagnoses. The relevant U.K. national guidelines for those patients totaled 3,679 pages. Estimated reading time: 122 hours.'"
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/evidence-based-medi...
Medicine and life sciences adopted bad statistics. Every single paper claims something along the lines of "what we observed is so incredibly unlikely (<5%) assuming complete randomness, it must mean our theory is true, our new drug works, the bad pollutant causes cancer, etc." Papers that should claim "what we observed is completely ordinary and there is nothing to see here" never get published.
Even if this was done correctly (it isn't, as John Ioannidis keeps pointing out), you'd get lots of false positive results (Ioannides again). The moment you look at a collection of statistics, the only available conclusion is "They all contradict each other!!1"
Until they ask physicists for help, medicine, life sciences, and many other fields will not be evidence based. We can call them "argument based", but that's not the same...
And its really funny they use "evidence-based medicine" as a positive example. Basically this is what we should expect to happen:
>'“Evidence-based medicine has drifted in recent years from investigating and managing established disease to detecting and intervening in non-diseases,” Greenhalgh and colleagues wrote in BMJ in June.
Furthermore, the “evidence” favoring various treatments typically comes from trials in which companies decide which drugs to test, at what doses, on how many people. Often the experimental statistical “evidence” in such studies establishes a benefit for a drug that is of little practical value; the supposed benefit, while perhaps real in a mathematical sense, is so slight as to be meaningless for real patients. In other cases, perfectly sound evidence regarding a particular disease is rendered irrelevant in patients afflicted with more than one disorder (patients who are commonly seen in medical practice, but typically excluded from the trials that produced the evidence).
On top of all that, Greenhalgh and colleagues point out, the sheer volume of medical evidence makes assessing it all intelligently essentially impossible. Even the guidelines summarizing the evidence are too voluminous to be useful to doctors.
“The number of [evidence based] clinical guidelines is now both unmanageable and unfathomable,” Greenhalgh and coauthors note. In one 24-hour period in 2005, for instance, a hospital in the United Kingdom admitted 18 patients with 44 diagnoses. The relevant U.K. national guidelines for those patients totaled 3,679 pages. Estimated reading time: 122 hours.'" https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/evidence-based-medi...