5 ms·
I think the author is too naive. First of all, the authors of the declarations in the example headlines are not "scientists and journalists", they are authorit
by Al-Khwarizmi 3y ago
I think the author is too naive.
First of all, the authors of the declarations in the example headlines are not "scientists and journalists", they are authorities and journalists. People like CDC officials or the director general of the WHO are of course scientists, but they are not speaking as scientists in those news pieces. They are speaking as politicians.
Secondly, I don't think they used the "no evidence" template so much with COVID because they were "fundamentally confused". Most of the headlines in those examples are clearly politically motivated: authorities wanted people not to panic, to keep working, and above all, to keep consuming. Hence the proliferation of "no evidence" headlines for things like the virus being airborne (inconvenient for bars, restaurants, shops, etc. - in fact one headline explicitly mentions bars and gyms); kids spreading the virus (inconvenient for parents taking their kids to school and therefore being able to work as ususal), etc. Each and every one of the headlines was very convenient to keep the wheels of "business as usual" spinning, what a coincidence, right? So no, they were not "fundamentally confused", they just were trying to bias the public towards a certain direction, and a great way to do that is to use the "no evidence" narrative which, as the post author explains, is ambiguous so no one can accuse them of outright lying.
Note that I'm not saying there aren't examples where such headlines do stem from confusion. I just don't think it's the case of the particular examples in this post.
- darkerside 3y agoHanlon's Razor being to be applied here. People like to point to conspiracy by politicians, but what I really saw were people trying to get the call right, jumping to conclusions, and then failing to realize it. If there were any semi conscious ulterior motivations, they were probably related to personal success.
- narrator 3y agoHanlon's razor would lead to the acquittal of almost every criminal defendant if applied consistently. Somehow, it only gets applied consistently to politicians, especially those the person invoking it tends to agree with.
- titzer 3y agoPoliticians absolutely do not get the benefit of the doubt by default. We must assume they are corrupt and mendacious all the time and put mechanisms into place to force them to not be by punishing them when they don't comply. They have to earn trust, and we always have to keep verifying.
- jewayne 3y agoI have noticed that the assumption that politicians are corrupt and mendacious is actually quite empowering to the corrupt and mendacious politicians. It is remarkably effective at steering honest people away from politics, however.
- peteradio 3y agopoliticians conspire as an artform, I don't mean that as any sort of mindblowing revelation just practical application of english language.
- Kranar 3y agoNeither the Director of WHO or CDC officials are politicians.
- nativeit 3y agoDefine “politician”.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- junofan 3y agoA politician is an elected official or somebody who is active in party politics. The WHO director is elected, and the current CDC director who founded Doctors for Obama is active in party politics.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThese sorts of roles absolutely are political. No one picks the WHO/CDC director for their ability to accurately pipette.
- NoPie 3y agoI agree, they are not politicians. However, they are deciding policy and that means their job is political.
- marcosdumay 3y ago> Secondly, I don't think they used the "no evidence" template so much with COVID because they were "fundamentally confused". Most of the headlines in those examples are clearly politically motivated Whence motivating the popular reaction that understands an authority claiming "no evidence" as strong evidence of the thing. It's a correct reaction way more often than it's wrong. But it steals the possibility from scientists to claim that despite several studies looking for it, there's no evidence (e.g. of vaccines causing autism). Or, in other words, what those politicians did is an irresponsible society-destroying act. They should be held accountable for it.
- SiempreViernes 3y agoWhat? I have no idea what you tried to say here...
- nkurz 3y agoHe's saying that in a politicized world (like the one we live in) the use of the phrase "no evidence" is a sign that the author is lying to you. He's claiming that if you if read a story by someone in power which claims "No evidence for X", you should update toward "X is probably true but politically inconvenient". He's not claiming this is logical, only that empirically it's a good strategy. A parallel might be that if the board of a company in the midst of a scandal puts out a statement saying "We have full faith in the CEO", your actual conclusion should be that the CEO is on their way out. This isn't what the words mean, but in practice it often turns out to be the right bet to make.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]