Always private
DuckDuckGo never tracks your searches.
Learn More
You can hide this reminder in Search Settings
All regions
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium (fr)
Belgium (nl)
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada (en)
Canada (fr)
Catalonia
Chile
China
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India (en)
Indonesia (en)
Ireland
Israel (en)
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia (en)
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan (en)
Peru
Philippines (en)
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain (ca)
Spain (es)
Sweden
Switzerland (de)
Switzerland (fr)
Taiwan
Thailand (en)
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
US (English)
US (Spanish)
Vietnam (en)
Safe search: moderate
Strict
Moderate
Off
Any time
Any time
Past day
Past week
Past month
Past year
  1. astralcodexten.com

    When we say "no evidence" here, we mean "no really strong evidence from scientists, worthy of a peer-reviewed journal article". But this is the opposite problem as with the parachutes - here we should stop accepting informal evidence, and demand more scientific rigor.
  2. The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication The latest from Astral Codex Ten (formerly Slate Star Codex): The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication Sharing it here because I think it's very relevant to one of Jesse's oft-discussed hobby horses: shoddy science journalism.
  3. You can see the problem. Science communicators are using the same term - "no evidence" - to mean: 1. This thing is super plausible, and honestly very likely true, but we haven't checked yet, so we can't be sure.

    Can’t find what you’re looking for?

    Help us improve DuckDuckGo searches with your feedback

Custom date rangeX