5 ms·

Likewise, when it comes to politics I've found "evidence based" to be a red flag. Most of the people using it mean seem to have come to a particular position fi

by bnralt 3y ago

Likewise, when it comes to politics I've found "evidence based" to be a red flag. Most of the people using it mean seem to have come to a particular position first, then cherry picked whatever evidence they could find to back up that position. Ironically enough, it usually signifies someone who's ideologically devoted to a particular position.

Hnrobert42 3y ago
Same with “common sense.”
ajross 3y ago
> Most of the [politicians saying "evidence based"] seem to have come to a particular position first, then cherry picked whatever evidence they could find to back up that position. How is that different than anyone else, for example yahoos arguing on the internet? The idea behind "evidence based" is a recognition that public policy has almost always been opinion-driven, and that we should cite evidence in support of our policies before adopting them. Does that mean the evidence is correct? No. (Though even cherry-picked evidence is better than no evidence!). Does it mean you agree with the policy? Certainly not in all cases. But the idea is sound. I think what you're upset about is not the "evidence based", it's that there's a partisan lean to the use of the term and that your tribe, whichever it is, is still doing the opinion thing and doesn't like citing studies.
jwond 3y ago
This brings to mind a pending bill in California where they are trying to amend the state constitution to allow the state to discriminate based on race, sex, etc. as long as it is "research-based" or "research-informed". In practice, I imagine it would enable the state to cherry-pick or even solicit research that would allow them to discriminate in the way that they want. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240ACA7&showamends=false https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...
hnfong 3y ago
It can be more sinister. (Disclaimer I'm not a scientist) Apparently in scientific circles, people can shoot down new claims by saying it doesn't have enough evidence, while the "default/fallback position" (held by the "establishment") is backed by even less evidence. I'm not saying it's a common thing, but if you're looking for "evidence based" red flags, this might also be something to look out for too.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  >Apparently in scientific circles, people can shoot down new claims by saying it doesn't have enough evidence, while the "default/fallback position" (held by the "establishment") is backed by even less evidence. Please provide an example.

by bnralt 3y ago

Hnrobert42 3y ago

Same with “common sense.”

ajross 3y ago

> Most of the [politicians saying "evidence based"] seem to have come to a particular position first, then cherry picked whatever evidence they could find to back up that position. How is that different than anyone else, for example yahoos arguing on the internet? The idea behind "evidence based" is a recognition that public policy has almost always been opinion-driven, and that we should cite evidence in support of our policies before adopting them. Does that mean the evidence is correct? No. (Though even cherry-picked evidence is better than no evidence!). Does it mean you agree with the policy? Certainly not in all cases. But the idea is sound. I think what you're upset about is not the "evidence based", it's that there's a partisan lean to the use of the term and that your tribe, whichever it is, is still doing the opinion thing and doesn't like citing studies.

jwond 3y ago

This brings to mind a pending bill in California where they are trying to amend the state constitution to allow the state to discriminate based on race, sex, etc. as long as it is "research-based" or "research-informed". In practice, I imagine it would enable the state to cherry-pick or even solicit research that would allow them to discriminate in the way that they want. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240ACA7&showamends=false https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...

hnfong 3y ago

It can be more sinister. (Disclaimer I'm not a scientist) Apparently in scientific circles, people can shoot down new claims by saying it doesn't have enough evidence, while the "default/fallback position" (held by the "establishment") is backed by even less evidence. I'm not saying it's a common thing, but if you're looking for "evidence based" red flags, this might also be something to look out for too.

mrguyorama 3y ago
>Apparently in scientific circles, people can shoot down new claims by saying it doesn't have enough evidence, while the "default/fallback position" (held by the "establishment") is backed by even less evidence. Please provide an example.