[elicksaur]

> We uncovered significant factual errors, including inaccuracies in effect sizes, sample sizes, and study inclusion/exclusion criteria, which were used to conclude that the impact of social media use on mental health is indistinguishable from zero.

https://www.afterbabel.com/p/fundamental-flaws-part-3

[gopher_space]

There were factual errors specific enough that the erroneous data could be used to support opposing conclusions?

Everything about this lit review (sorry, meta-analysis) gets weird in the conclusions. It's like reading anthro papers written before the 70s.

[Spivak]

Yes, that's academic discourse for you. Why do you assume this critique is more authoritative than the paper? Would you dismiss the critique if it was the other direction?

[ordu]

Neither is more authoritative, but if we lay aside science to rely on our common sense, then we'll get to "we don't really know, but my guts say me that X is true", aren't we? If we look at the scientific consensus once again, we'll see that there is no scientific consensus. So the whole situation boils down to "we don't really know".

[Spivak]

I agree! Which is why I'm so surprised that folks feel so strongly one way or another about it when there's been so little consensus. To me the jury is very much still out on this one.

[xboxnolifes]

Sounds like skepticism.