Smells like EA. The "Evidence stance" measure in particular, which purports to gauge a study's rigorousness as a simple percentage, is rank pseudoscience.
> which purports to gauge a study's rigorousness as a simple percentage
That's not what it does.
Some of the studies showed a causal relationship clearly. Some showed merely an association with a plausible argument about why it was mostly causal. You can decide what proportion of the unproven effects to include.
In reality, there's more causal effects than those that are proven, but not all of these measured associations are causal.
It's an arbitrary metric that creates an illusion of rigor. That looks to me like an instance of the quantitative (or McNamara) fallacy, and a pretty typical application of pseudoscience.
effective altruism is about saying to yourself "I deserve this" and then pretending there's some divine right to deserve it because you'll go outrace capitalisms broad damage.
That's not what it does.
Some of the studies showed a causal relationship clearly. Some showed merely an association with a plausible argument about why it was mostly causal. You can decide what proportion of the unproven effects to include.
In reality, there's more causal effects than those that are proven, but not all of these measured associations are causal.