3 ms·

Basically, "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 in

• 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 ago
      This 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?