3 ms·
> I'm talking about things that more amount to a form of pressure-induced willful stupidity, no dishonesty involved. Isn't that still dishonesty though? If you
by 781 7y ago
> I'm talking about things that more amount to a form of pressure-induced willful stupidity, no dishonesty involved.
Isn't that still dishonesty though? If you know that you are misapplying statistical techniques to get what you want, how is that different from a pseudo-scientist talking about quantum mumbo-jumbo to get what he wants.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission
On a bigger scale, this just fuels public anti-science, who is fed up of reading in the news "coffee is good for your heart" and the next day "coffee causes heart attacks". And it's not only because of journalists writing sensational titles, you can actually find meta-analysis pro/against any major food group.
- cgiles 7y agoIt is honestly hard to tell in these situations when they are lying by omission and when they are plain stupid. I think it is usually a form of apathy whereby what is produced is bullshit (in the technical meaning of the essay, "On Bullshit", whereby people don't care whether a thing is true or false so long as it's published). > On a bigger scale, this just fuels public anti-science Yep... But people have careers to maintain and grants to get. I totally agree with you and take your side on this issue but the systemic issues are huge and I don't know what exactly it would take to fix them.