flâneur

The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication

astralcodexten.com · 1,354 words · saved by 2 readers

Every single one of these statements that had “no evidence” is currently considered true or at least pretty plausible. In an extremely nitpicky sense, these headlines are accurate. Officials were simply describing the then-current state of knowledge. In medicine, anecdotes or hunches aren’t considered “real” evidence. So if there hasn’t been a study showing something, then there’s “no evidence”. In early 2020, there hadn’t yet been a study proving that COVID could be airborne, so there was “no evidence” for it. On the other hand, here is a recent headline: No Evidence That 45,000 People Died Of Vaccine-Related Complications. Here’s another: No Evidence Vaccines Cause Miscarriage. I don’t think the scientists and journalists involved in these stories meant to shrug and say that no study has ever been done so we can’t be sure either way. I think they meant to express strong confidence these things are false. You can see the problem. Science communicators are using the same term - “no evi

The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication ... Scott Alexander Dec 17, 2021 392 490 16 Share Related to: Doctor, There Are Two Types Of No Evidence ; A Failure, But Not Of Prediction . I. Click to enlarge Every single one of these statements that had “no evidence” is currently considered true or at least pretty plausible. In an extremely nitpicky sense, these headlines are accurate. Officials were simply describing the then-current state of knowledge. In medicine, anecdotes or hunches aren’t considered “real” evidence. So if there hasn’t been a study showing something

saved by

related reading