3 ms·
> The thing is that "No Evidence" is just flat untrue. No it isn't, it's a term of art and it tells you something very important: the second half of the phrase
by ajross 3y ago
> The thing is that "No Evidence" is just flat untrue.
No it isn't, it's a term of art and it tells you something very important: the second half of the phrase is still only a hypothesis and no one has tried or been able to prove it in a rigorous way. And if you understand that, it gives you a lot of context for how to interpret it.
Does it get misused by non-scientists to mean other things? Sure. But you get lied to every day with far more sophistication, so I guess I don't understand the huff about this particular bit of jargon.
This was a weak article, basically. Leave the scientists their jargon, if you don't like how it's being used, argue about the specifics of the point.
- dml2135 3y agoI think the article is complaining about journalists much more than scientists.
- mistermann 3y ago> No it isn't, it's a term of art and it tells you something very important: the second half of the phrase is still only a hypothesis and no one has tried or been able to prove it in a rigorous way. Can you restate the meaning of the term of art "No evidence"? Can you cite any source that explains this fact you are relaying in greater depth? Does science have a different term to communicate the nonexistence of evidence?
- staunton 3y agoBasically, "there is no (scientific) evidence of X" means that nobody published a peer-reviewed paper yet presenting evidence for X. At least that's a common interpretation...
- mistermann 3y ago[flagged]
- ajross 3y ago> Interesting, but that doesn't even attempt to answer any of the 3 questions I posed This is horrible sealioning[1], please stop. Surely if there's an entity responsible for rigorously defining and documenting the term under discussion, it's the linked article and not arbitrary commenters in a discussion about it. No one anywhere in this thread is using this term in a way inconsistent with the articles, so if you have a complaint please take it there. Demanding we all stop and define terms is just a way of evading discussion. If you have an alternative definition, you can propose it yourself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThis doesn't make sense since it's quite possible someone on HN has more expertise on the topic than the article writer. So of course we can't rely on the writer, or the written words, of any 'linked article' to be authoritative and decisive in any sense or in any capacity. i.e. Everything is only tentative until someone offers a better argument/proof/analysis/etc...
- mistermann 3y ago> This is horrible sealioning[1], please stop. It isn't even Sea-lioning! Never mind logic and epistemology, can you people even get your meme magic right? > Demanding we all stop and define terms is just a way of evading discussion. "Just" as in "only"? If so: incorrect again (there are other possibilities); if not: so what?