4 ms·
Before even looking at the content of the article I agree. This phrase drives me nuts. It's so imprecise. How hard did you look for evidence? Did you discount e
by orblivion 3y ago
Before even looking at the content of the article I agree. This phrase drives me nuts. It's so imprecise. How hard did you look for evidence? Did you discount evidence from "known deniers"? Do you count statistical anomalies as evidence? If not, what name should we use for those, because they're not _nothing_.
And this ambiguity, imho, is exploited politically all the time.
- orblivion 3y agoHaving read it, I'll add that it seems like journalists would never adopt these suggestions because they're afraid (for better or worse) of letting the public think for themselves. They want to sound authoritative because they've made the decision for the public.