3 ms·
> blatantly misrepresents the contents of the article vs. > ‘not accepted by most modern medical experts’ and that ‘there is no scientific evidence the produc
by x2398dh1 10y ago
> blatantly misrepresents the contents of the article
vs.
> ‘not accepted by most modern medical experts’ and that ‘there is no scientific evidence the product works’
In other words, "doesn't work." If there is no evidence of something working, an acceptable shorthand translation for this in the english language is, "it ain't gonna work."
- IgorPartola 10y agoYou are losing subtle but important meaning. First most != all. Second, some still think that ancient is better than modern. Third, science to some is a belief system, not an absolute. These are all fallacies, but to a person convinced that some herb will cure their gout or arthritis it reads very differently than "doesn't work". It reads as "hasn't proven to work yet." And this is the crux of the problem. The scientific community cannot just discount something because it hasn't yet been found to work. It is possible, though extremely unlikely, that some herb can be concentrated just right to cure whatever, so we can't say "it never did and it never will work". And the person who is already mistrustful of be scientific process and community will see that as evidence that it might. Obviously, I am not in favor of perpetuating myths, but strictly speaking it is more neuanced than what you said.