01.17.2016 02:21 PM

Evidence-based tweet


  1. Ray Blessin says:

    And stop saying “evidence-based” medicine.
    Science-based medicine is a whole ‘nother thing.

  2. doconnor says:

    You use evidence to seek the truth and you can say something is not true, but can’t really say something is true because you never know when you’ll find new evidence.

  3. Bill Templeman says:

    Warren, evidence is cool again; you know that. We can talk about the presence or absence of evidence for backing a position and not get shredded. The country needs time to adjust to this new gig. Give us some time, like a few years. Eventually we’ll all get back to the place you endorse, wherein “evidence-based” and “being true” are synonymous. I’m with you, long-term. But right now we all still need time to get used to our new wings. Huge change in political culture. As in “Let me be perfectly clear about what this government stands for”…. Remember? (shudder)

  4. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    Reminds me of that political cop out: it’s my understanding.

  5. e.a.f. says:

    but “evidence based” makes it sound so more “intelligent”, just plain stupid. Like did they forget plan old English. lets stop with the pseudo phrases and words. It doesn’t add anything to the conversation.

  6. Peter says:

    While we’re at it, can we stop using the word evolved when all we mean is changed?

  7. the salamander hordes says:

    .. isn’t that akin to not using objective or subjective & instead saying true or not true? I like medical decisions or protocols that are evidence based.. like treating mood disorders until full remission .. or treating concussions as brain injury. In the same vein I want government and agencies making evidence based decisions regarding hydraulic fracturing, especially near urban areas.

    ‘that’s not true’ is the default war cry of the partisan or ignorant when their folly is challenged, despite a complete absence of evidence to back their belief. I guess one could say that not much in the world of religion is ‘evidence based’ but there’s sure a whack of people caught up in the true or not true arguement as they squabble over their fave deity .. !

  8. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    Rodham Clinton will be the nominee — but for the wrong reasons: they think that either they owe it to her or that it’s simply her turn. Big mistake. Sexism and misogyny will eliminate her as a potential Commander in Chief…

    On the Republican side, the eventual stop Trump movement will succeed and Rubio will be the beneficiary. In a change election, he wins and she loses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *