> That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. It’s not simply a name for the minority position whereever where there isn’t c

> That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. It’s not simply a name for the minority position whereever where there isn’t consensus. I think there's a gray area: minority scientific position that's being hyped by a faction for political reasons (e.g. a faction that's cherry picking outlier studies for the sole reason that they support their pre-existing policy preferences). Now some might argue that "both sides" do that, and to a degree they might be right. However, I think there's another heuristic that helps avoid paralysis due to that: if both sides aren't trying to solve the problem in good faith, pick the one that is, and reject the one that's just reacting against proposed solutions.