(THREAD) There seems to be some...I'll call it tension between trialists and critics that occasionally burbles up on Twitter. As someone that kinda-sorta sits on both side of this fence, I have a few thoughts.
1) I agree with the statement that you don't have to be a trialist to critique a trial. You do need to know what you're talking about, but you don't have to "be a trialist" to have methods/statistical knowledge that allows you to comment on trials.
2) However, I also sympathize with the trialist who points out the difficulty of actually designing, conducting, running, and analyzing the thing(s). They're challenging even when everything goes right. And everything goes right...well, never. That never happens.
3) I think the key in critique of the trials is, rather than making it critical of the people themselves, or even the design, make it focused on how the critique affects the results and findings in context.
4) Some critique as a purely academic exercise is useful - for learning and informing future trial design. Surely, that's how many of us will learn.
5) But for the most part it is probably best if discussion of the critique remains focused on how the things we're parsing apart influence the way we interpret the results.
6) Finally, if you must be critical, I have found that the best way to lighten the mood is with a GIF. So let's all have fun out there.
