Originally Posted by
Maelochs
Originally Posted by
cooker
It could be either of those or even other explanations.
Which is why this isn't science, and isn't even helpful.
I understand people have to publish to get tenure, to increase professional standing, and just to make money ... but this .... whatever. if you like it, good for you.
But ... is it cycling that you like, or studies about cycling, or debating about cycling ....
Stay happy ... if that is what you prefer.
I don't get your objection. The authors are doing large scale public health research using available databases, looking for factors associated with well-being. They have no illusions about establishing causality: "We can't prove causality at this point," Roy says. "We don't know if we improve these twelve factors, will we actually lead to improved well-being. But it certainly provides us with a first step in understanding what perhaps we should test."
How would you have done it differently?