3 ms·

> there CANNOT BE A "convincing claim I think there can be convincing claims that convince people of falsehoods, in which case the claims are also misleading.

by yorwba 5y ago

> there CANNOT BE A "convincing claim I think there can be convincing claims that convince people of falsehoods, in which case the claims are also misleading. If "convincing" were replaced by "convincing, but misleading" or "convincing, but incorrect", would you then agree with the paragraph?

eesmith 5y ago
My basic claim is the author did a slight-of-hand by accepting eye-witness claims to alien abduction to be counted as evidence for alien abductions, then rejecting the existence of easily demonstrated evidence that could be used to support the effectiveness snake oil. I cannot answer your question because I don't understand the author's viewpoint. That's because to me the phrase "no evidence" is not really related to the 'belief in fallible scientists' but to the belief in fallible claims. This could be because I was trained in science, and the author is trying to make some point about poor science communications by scientists and journalists. But the author is engaged in some rather poor science communications, by misrepresenting the BMJ paper, by using a mutable definition of what evidence means, and by lumping everything claims from 'zero evidence' to 'no hard evidence' into a single characterization. Before you respond, take a look at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3676982 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3676982 titled "Hydroxychloroquine, Parachutes And How to Understand 'The Evidence'". Here's the start: > It is deliberately misleading to make general claims that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work for CoViD-19. It is even more misleading to claim that “the evidence” proves that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work. > To understand this, consider the use of parachutes. Doesn't this argument sound familiar?

3 ms·

> there CANNOT BE A "convincing claim I think there can be convincing claims that convince people of falsehoods, in which case the claims are also misleading.

by yorwba 5y ago

eesmith 5y ago
My basic claim is the author did a slight-of-hand by accepting eye-witness claims to alien abduction to be counted as evidence for alien abductions, then rejecting the existence of easily demonstrated evidence that could be used to support the effectiveness snake oil. I cannot answer your question because I don't understand the author's viewpoint. That's because to me the phrase "no evidence" is not really related to the 'belief in fallible scientists' but to the belief in fallible claims. This could be because I was trained in science, and the author is trying to make some point about poor science communications by scientists and journalists. But the author is engaged in some rather poor science communications, by misrepresenting the BMJ paper, by using a mutable definition of what evidence means, and by lumping everything claims from 'zero evidence' to 'no hard evidence' into a single characterization. Before you respond, take a look at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3676982 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3676982 titled "Hydroxychloroquine, Parachutes And How to Understand 'The Evidence'". Here's the start: > It is deliberately misleading to make general claims that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work for CoViD-19. It is even more misleading to claim that “the evidence” proves that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work. > To understand this, consider the use of parachutes. Doesn't this argument sound familiar?