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

    Science communicators are using the same term - "no evidence" - 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.
  2. 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 "no evidence") invites confusion between these meanings. Sometimes this confusion is intentional.
  3. What actually raises a red flag is someone arguing that claims of no evidence should necessarily be viewed with suspicion or as an indication of bad science journalism. A good article with such a headline would make it clear what the implications of there being no evidence for a particular claim are.
  4. So, "No evidence" 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").
  5. news.ycombinator.com

    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.
  6. I recently read Scott Alexander's blog post titled The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication (substack.com). In Alexander's post, he states that scientists use ...
  7. 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.
  8. lesswrong.com

    This is a reference post for the Law of No Evidence. Scott Alexander did us all a public service this week with his post The Phrase "No Evidence" Is a Red Flag for Bad Science Communication. 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

Custom date rangeX