Science communicators are using the same term - "noevidence" - to mean: This thing is super plausible, and honestly very likely true, but we haven't checked yet, so we can't be sure. We have hard-and-fast evidence that this is false, stop repeating this easily debunked lie.
The word "evidence" has two separate meanings - double blind peer reviewed studies, vs any piece of information that might lead you to think a certain thought. Using the word "evidence" (and especially the phrase "noevidence") invites confusion between these meanings. Sometimes this confusion is intentional.
What actually raises a redflagis someone arguing that claims of noevidence should necessarily be viewed with suspicion or as an indication of badscience journalism. A good article with such a headline would make it clear what the implications of there being noevidencefora particular claim are.
A recent article written by Scott Alexander, "ThePhrase "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 ...
So, "Noevidence" can mean an absence of any evidence, but also a clear unfavourable balance of a large quantity of evidence. It thus is ambiguous between agnosticism and rejection, even beyond the cases Scott describes (where "This thing is super plausible, and honestly very likely true, but we haven't checked yet, so we can't be sure").
Sometimes absence of evidence really is evidence of absence, if you would expect evidence to have surfaced by now. Nobody knows whether 5G will cause cancer. Nobody knew whether 3G and 4G would, either. We ran the experiment on the general public, and with very large N, it seems like not: no rash of cases seems to have appeared.
I recently read Scott Alexander's blog post titled The Phrase "NoEvidence" IsARedFlagForBadScienceCommunication (substack.com). In Alexander's post, he states that scientists use ...
The 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. If you have not yet read it I recommend doing so, and it is an excellent link to have handy going forward, and especially to have handy when going through studies about the severity of Omicron.
Can’t find what you’re looking for?
Help us improve DuckDuckGo searches with your feedback