this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
59 points (84.7% liked)

Science Communication

892 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to c/SciComm @ Mander.xyz!

Science Communication



Notice Board

This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.



About

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.


Resources

Outreach:

Networking:



Similar Communities


Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Plants & Gardening

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Memes

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

[–] Eylrid 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That depends on if you would expect evidence or not. If I go to the beach and there's no evidence of whales, that doesn't mean there's no whales in the ocean. But, If there's no evidence of an elephant in my living room then that's pretty good evidence there's no elephant in my living room.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is it though? When is the last time you thoroughly checked your living room for elephants

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

The house hippos tend to keep the elephants at bay

[–] givesomefucks 4 points 1 year ago

You know damn well we didn't find no WMDS!

That whole show is great, but that's like the best 2-3 minutes of the show

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But it is far more likely to be evidence of absence than evidence of presence.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

It is also very likely to be evidence of: no one has gathered enough data yet

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's also likely to be evidence that something can't be patented, so nobody will pay for trials.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I think the better term is 'more study is needed'

[–] givesomefucks 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Before you listen to anything that blog author has to say, you may want to learn about what kind of shit he posts on that blog...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html

Hint: it's a safe space for silicon valley alt right tech bros.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whatever his personal politics may be, there's nothing wrong in what this article has to say.

[–] givesomefucks -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nah, I don't see much value in criticisms about science from the alt right...

Pretty popular common position, so likely why this one freaked out so much when potential patients would Google him, this blog would show up.

I'm surprised he still has a license to practice

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Generally, I would agree with this statement:

Nah, I don’t see much value in criticisms about science from the alt right…

but… the author is criticizing how science is reported, not science itself. He’s done (and is probably continuing to do) some pretty unethical things, but this article seems reasonable, and raises a valid point.

Plus, he’s not just whining or throwing a tantrum like some pundit. He offers a solution:

Okay, but then what? “No Evidence That Snake Oil Works” is the bread and butter of science journalism. How do you express that concept without falling into the “no evidence” trap?

I think you have to go back to the basics of journalism: what story are you trying to cover?

If the story is that nobody has ever investigated snake oil, and you have no strong opinion on it, and for some reason that’s newsworthy, use the words “either way”: “No Evidence Either Way About Whether Snake Oil Works”.

If the story is that all the world’s top doctors and scientists believe snake oil doesn’t work, then say so. “Scientists: Snake Oil Doesn’t Work”. This doesn’t have the same faux objectivity as “No Evidence Snake Oil Works”. It centers the belief in fallible scientists, as opposed to the much more convincing claim that there is literally not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that anyone could use in favor of snake oil. Maybe it would sound less authoritative. Breaking an addiction to false certainty is as hard as breaking any other addiction. But the first step is admitting you have a problem.

He’s advocating for greater accuracy and clarity. That’s not something that charlatans typically do. If the “fallible scientists” bit bothers you, well, it’s only the truth. Scientists are just as human as the rest of us. That’s why peer review exists.

[–] palebluethought 0 points 1 year ago

Rationalists are weird and not nearly as smart as they think they are. But "alt-right" they are not, and that article was completely ridiculous.

The rationalist community is kind of bizarre and definitely has its share of big problems (see x/acc and Sam Bankman-Fried). But they're not some hate-spewing fascists, and treating them as pariahs on the basis of a few deliberately decontextualized quotes hardly seems fair.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

This is a good article.

One of the dumbest things we've seen not just from science media but from media in general is this phrase "no evidence"

I have a rock here, and I claim that this rock will cause you to become a millionaire if you hold it.

So you start a double-blind study to prove it or disprove it.

Guess what? If your sample size is large enough, someone is going to become a millionaire by pure dumb luck. Whether you like it or not, that's evidence. It's poor evidence, it's overwhemingly contradicted by more, better evidence, but guess what? There is evidence that holding the rock will cause you to become a millionaire!

It seems pedantic, but when people say there's zero evidence for something, and exactly one evidence shows up, then that claim that there's zero evidence is automatically refuted! Even if it's something that everyone agrees is false.