I am noticing in comment sections some people who kinda sorta get what scientific evidence is, but not really. They have read something or more likely heard it - and I won't betray the leaning by saying where - that cites a paper somewhere. It seems to be a legit paper about a current issue, but the paper is from 2011. Following it up, it seems to stand in relative isolation. It is cited by other papers but not many. It is an idea I had not previously run across, though it is in a field adjacent to mine.
So it could be so. But it's not convincing to me. The rest of the argument suggests that the person rejects the standard theories, with some anger. Also possible. I have rejected some standard theories in my day myself. I can't quite put my finger on why this person is not only wrong about this thread, but likely wrong about the whole topic, and maybe many topics. Is it the failure to understand that once there is a standard theory, it takes a serious amount of evidence to topple it? Is it the sense that this person would not have ever encountered this study from Japan if he had not been fed it by someone with a political motive? I don't know that, but the person doesn't seem to know the field in general, just this short list.
No, no it's the childish insults. Sort of a giveaway. And one lame joke in particular, which I noted a dozen years ago, still holds true in 2023.
8 comments:
"That those who simply cannot refrain from an incredibly obvious comment telegraph something about themselves."
I've known a few people like that and they do indeed have poor social skills. OTOH, as someone I know once said about a devious colleague, so-and-so's behavior is so transparent that everyone sees right through her. (People with good intentions and good/poor social skills: no problem. People with bad intentions and poor social skills: no problem. People with bad intentions and good social skills: problem.)
WRT the topic at hand, plenty of people insist they are following the science when what they are really doing is appealing to the authority of scientific papers. Or, worse, they are appealing to the authority of press releases by politically engaged scientists. It's difficult to argue with such people because 1) they don't know what they don't know and 2) while "I don't know" may be the correct conclusion, arguing uncertainty as a conclusion against someone who insists that he knows is socially and rhetorically an uphill battle.
Good thoughts, and that last sentence is a good sendoff for a lot of topics. Bsking has had a couple of years straight with this. Just as the family settled down into not bothering her and work became at least manageable because the pathological ones are now recognised, her whole town (Canton, MA) has gone off the nut, accusing the police, all public officials, and everyone who grew up there of covering up a murder for no apparent reason.
Ha! I was just coming here to comment about this. Someone pushing the murder coverup theory recently mentioned they believed it due to the “scientific evidence”. I was amazed they were not trying to cite any forensics or anything I would remotely consider scientific, but rather YouTube videos and court documents. They seem to be using “scientific” to mean “I believe I’ve been logical about this, I watched some videos then poked around at the things they linked to, I’m not a sheep”. I’d imagine that informal definition gets used a lot in many different circumstances.
I think you are on to something in terms of language. Science, or scientific evidence is no longer required to have anything to do with an actual science. It is now a word to conjure with, a word that indicates you are a certain type of person.
This reminds me of the recent BMJ (I think) review that reminded researchers there's a difference between evidence-based medicine and consensus-based medicine. The latter is often necessary because you can't always wait for decades for full evidence before you have to act, but "everyone in the field agrees with this" is still not the same as "we have thoroughly researched this question". The word "evidence" had come to be interchangeable with "expertise", when they are actually two different things.
'..."everyone in the field agrees with this" is still not the same as "we have thoroughly researched this question".'
Expressed nicely. Why is this so hard to get across? COVID origins, anyone?
@ Uncle Bill - particularly apropos because it turns out that everyone in the field did not agree with the consensus. It is comforting to note that some voices did get through, measured in months, not years.
Weeks would be better, of course.
Post a Comment