4 ms·

I agree up until this bit: > If the story is that nobody has ever investigated snake oil, and you have no strong opinion on it, and for some reason that’s news

I agree up until this bit: > If the story is that nobody has ever investigated snake oil, and you have no strong opinion on it, and for some reason that’s newsworthy, use the words “either way”: “No Evidence Either Way About Whether Snake Oil Works”. You spent how long telling me that "no evidence" is bad writing, and your solution is "no evidence" + weasel words? That's even worse. Just recognize that the thing you have no opinion on is not newsworthy, and just drop it. That's right, less writing is good journalism. The greater problem here is the fear of authority. If there is a position to present, then present it directly. If the position is that snake oil doesn't work, then just say it. If you aren't a good enough authority, then find someone who is. This is where scientific communication has ultimately failed. The strongest authorities we have all use the weakest language that they can! By refusing to represent a strong position, we have left a void. That void will inevitably be filled by the least scrupulous authors. Whatever fills the void will be implicitly held in awe by the lack of direct criticism we had constructed around the void in the first place. Refusing to participate creates an inverse cult. An anti-cult where everyone agrees to never share what they believe. It spreads its anti-message just as quickly, and cements itself just as divisively, as any evangelist organization does. We must recognize that the anti-cult lives on equal footing with the cult. The true power of each exists, not in their core truth claim, but at the boundary of argument. Argument is engagement, and engagement is fuel. To avoid engagement is to starve.

oharapj 3y ago
This is a pretty misguided argument. There are some topics that are still being researched, and if people say anything other than ‘There’s not enough evidence either way and so until we know more sit tight.’ or something to that effect, they’re simply being misleading. At the same time, these topics are being sensationalised by various people and so something should be said about them. You can use stronger words to discuss the sensationalisation itself, but when discussing the topic and the evidence itself rational, even handed language should be used as that is the language of science. Unfortunately using (misleading) stronger language to stand out more against unscrupulous actors merely ruins your integrity and message. It’s better to be a source of good information for the people looking for it than to add to the pile of untrustworthy noise
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  > There are some topics that are still being researched, and if people say anything other than ‘There’s not enough evidence either way and so until we know more sit tight.’ or something to that effect, they’re simply being misleading. OK, but then the argument is conclusive vs. inconclusive. Obviously that's something you can present a clear position on. This position does not exist in a vacuum: you brought up the lack of consensus in response to a vain assumption of consensus. The most important part of your entire sentence was, "sit tight". What is often done instead is to present broad inconfidence. Anyone who assumes any consensus anywhere has broken the cardinal rule. They have made the obvious mistake, and will suffer the consequences. Here's the problem with that tactic: we all suffer the consequences. Weasel words don't resolve the contentiousness of scientific communication. They dodge it.
  - oharapj 3y ago
    In what way is ‘We need more evidence to know either way’ not a clear position? How is that weasel words? Feigning confidence of certainty in the absence of clear evidence is not scientific. This isn’t a problem about consensus, it’s a problem about evidence. I agree that scientific communicators and scientists should think for themselves and read widely and draw their own conclusions, but sometimes the evidence isn’t there to support a belief either way. Is that really dodging something?

oharapj 3y ago

This is a pretty misguided argument. There are some topics that are still being researched, and if people say anything other than ‘There’s not enough evidence either way and so until we know more sit tight.’ or something to that effect, they’re simply being misleading. At the same time, these topics are being sensationalised by various people and so something should be said about them. You can use stronger words to discuss the sensationalisation itself, but when discussing the topic and the evidence itself rational, even handed language should be used as that is the language of science. Unfortunately using (misleading) stronger language to stand out more against unscrupulous actors merely ruins your integrity and message. It’s better to be a source of good information for the people looking for it than to add to the pile of untrustworthy noise

thomastjeffery 3y ago
> There are some topics that are still being researched, and if people say anything other than ‘There’s not enough evidence either way and so until we know more sit tight.’ or something to that effect, they’re simply being misleading. OK, but then the argument is conclusive vs. inconclusive. Obviously that's something you can present a clear position on. This position does not exist in a vacuum: you brought up the lack of consensus in response to a vain assumption of consensus. The most important part of your entire sentence was, "sit tight". What is often done instead is to present broad inconfidence. Anyone who assumes any consensus anywhere has broken the cardinal rule. They have made the obvious mistake, and will suffer the consequences. Here's the problem with that tactic: we all suffer the consequences. Weasel words don't resolve the contentiousness of scientific communication. They dodge it.
- oharapj 3y ago
  In what way is ‘We need more evidence to know either way’ not a clear position? How is that weasel words? Feigning confidence of certainty in the absence of clear evidence is not scientific. This isn’t a problem about consensus, it’s a problem about evidence. I agree that scientific communicators and scientists should think for themselves and read widely and draw their own conclusions, but sometimes the evidence isn’t there to support a belief either way. Is that really dodging something?