Originally posted by Kermanshahi
View Post
The Roberts et al study hasn't been replicated, it applied methodology in a very questionable manner, benchmarked poorly with pre-war mortality figures, doesn't benchmark well with other conflicts, doesn't benchmark well against other post-war conflict death counts, uses timing that biases figures upwards, can't account for some pre-war actions that biases figures upwards (i.e., the counterfactual of no war), had little to no transparency in peer review relative to other studies, and was written by someone with presupposed outcomes (not fire, but smoke in light of other fires that adds to the totality of the questionable scientific methodology used).
I'd love to hear how you find it "not debunked" and credible, as it brings into question your own credibility and judgment given the evidence stacked against it.
Comment