3 ms·

> I feel like such strong statements should directly reference strong evidence That's not the way the burden of proof goes! Consider "Fluoride Toothpaste is n

by ajross 3y ago

> I feel like such strong statements should directly reference strong evidence That's not the way the burden of proof goes! Consider "Fluoride Toothpaste is not a Superconductor". What you want is conspiracy logic: assume something interesting is probably true based on weak evidence (a handful of videos on twitter seems like table stakes in this particular controversy), and then when people deny it you demand that it "should directly reference strong evidence".

peterdsharpe 3y ago
There is a difference between saying "We believe LK-99 is NOT a superconductor" and "We do not believe LK-99 is a superconductor". The former is a hypothesis, the latter is a rejection of a hypothesis. The latter is really just expressing a return to an agnostic base state. Hence, the former requires evidence, and the latter is the null hypothesis.
- ajross 3y ago
  The grandparent was demanding data and evidence to argue about the status of superconduction in a real material. What you wrote is just a semantic argument.[1] And you're right. But you're not telling us anything about LK-99. If you want to tell me that the linked tweet is a little hyperbolic and could be stated more rigorously, I'd agree! But we both know that's not the frame of the comment I was responding to. The upthread posters "wants to believe", and is looking for reasons to reject the tweet's opinion, not its language. [1] Which, notably, ignored my toothpaste analogy.
tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
This is a naive view of the burden of proof. The reality is that anyone that actually cares already knows the situation: we are waiting on reproductions. This Tweet pretty clearly implies that there’s been some sort of new insight. That’s the obvious and intended plain language effect it’s having. Ham-fistedly applying “burden of proof!” Is just being tone deaf.
- ajross 3y ago
  > The reality is that anyone that actually cares already knows the situation: we are waiting on reproductions. No, the reality is we're not getting reproductions. You're doing the same thing the upthread poster is and demanding that in the absence of evidence, we believe the most interesting assertion. But no, that's not how it works, and that's what the tweet is trying to tell you. It only seems "tone deaf" if you're invested in the argument.

by ajross 3y ago

peterdsharpe 3y ago

There is a difference between saying "We believe LK-99 is NOT a superconductor" and "We do not believe LK-99 is a superconductor". The former is a hypothesis, the latter is a rejection of a hypothesis. The latter is really just expressing a return to an agnostic base state. Hence, the former requires evidence, and the latter is the null hypothesis.

ajross 3y ago
The grandparent was demanding data and evidence to argue about the status of superconduction in a real material. What you wrote is just a semantic argument.[1] And you're right. But you're not telling us anything about LK-99. If you want to tell me that the linked tweet is a little hyperbolic and could be stated more rigorously, I'd agree! But we both know that's not the frame of the comment I was responding to. The upthread posters "wants to believe", and is looking for reasons to reject the tweet's opinion, not its language. [1] Which, notably, ignored my toothpaste analogy.

tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago

This is a naive view of the burden of proof. The reality is that anyone that actually cares already knows the situation: we are waiting on reproductions. This Tweet pretty clearly implies that there’s been some sort of new insight. That’s the obvious and intended plain language effect it’s having. Ham-fistedly applying “burden of proof!” Is just being tone deaf.

ajross 3y ago
> The reality is that anyone that actually cares already knows the situation: we are waiting on reproductions. No, the reality is we're not getting reproductions. You're doing the same thing the upthread poster is and demanding that in the absence of evidence, we believe the most interesting assertion. But no, that's not how it works, and that's what the tweet is trying to tell you. It only seems "tone deaf" if you're invested in the argument.