4 ms·

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

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?

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?