After watching this entire hours-long debate, I think the biggest issue I have with the entire argument from Taubes is pretty simple It's a fairly basic misunderstanding of how evidence is generated and usedhttps://twitter.com/dailyzad/status/1108129947271512065 …
-
-
If all you do when disconfirmatory evidence comes out - studies that directly contradict your viewpoint - is find a way to ignore them, THEN YOU ARE PROBABLY WRONG
Show this thread -
And you see this all the time in anti-vaccine arguments as well New massive study comes out that shows that vaccines don't cause autism? Well, it was done in Denmark and we all know the Danish are unethical just look at this other guy who once lived in Denmark (ACTUAL ARGUMENT)
Show this thread -
So there are dozens of studies that directly contradict Taubes' viewpoint. What of it? They're done by people once paid by industry, or are meta-analyses, or don't have the exact specifics of the one study whose evidence he will accept that conveniently supports his opinions
Show this thread -
Ultimately, it's very hard to argue against these viewpoints because the often it seems that the only evidence that's accepted is confirmatory Anything that isn't just gets discarded Which is not how science works at all. Fin.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.