When we say "noevidence" 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.
In Scott Alexander's article, "ThePhrase'NoEvidence'IsARedFlagForBadScienceCommunication," he identifies a key issue in scientific communication. He writes: Vague word choice ...
A recent article written by Scott Alexander, " The Phrase "NoEvidence" IsaRedFlagForBadScienceCommunication ," describes the vagueness of the misleading use of the phrase "No ...
Scott Alexander, in his recent article, The Phrase "NoEvidence" IsARedFlagForBadScienceCommunication (substack.com), articulates the unspoken ambiguity of the term "Noevidence" in ...
The overall thrust of the "noevidence" point is well stated, if not super obvious to everyone in the Red-Tribe for the past two years, (hell, much longer and its mostly what you keep calling "anti-science").
Sciencecommunication needs to create new expressions to replace "noevidence" to separate the two meanings, maybe "there's insufficient evidence to conclude on" and "the current evidence doesn't support".
There is, in fact, plenty of evidencefor nanoampere current causing profound biological effects. I personally attended a talk in 1987 by a biologist who induced insect larvae to grow to 4x normal size by E-M stimulation of such a current.
ThePhrase "NoEvidence" IsARedFlagForBadScienceCommunicationThe latest from Astral Codex Ten (formerly Slate Star Codex): The Phrase "NoEvidence" IsARedFlagForBadScienceCommunication Sharing it here because I think it's very relevant to one of Jesse's oft-discussed hobby horses: shoddy science journalism.
This is a reference post for the Law of NoEvidence. Scott Alexander did us all a public service this week with his post The Phrase "NoEvidence" IsaRedFlagforBadScienceCommunication.
You can see the problem. Science communicators are using the same term - "noevidence" - 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