Another example - Taubes criticizes work by a scientist because he was at one point paid by a private company I've written entire threads about why this perspective is factually inaccurate
-
Show this thread
-
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
In brief: you can't throw out studies because they were done by people/businesses you don't like. To do so runs against the evidence and makes no sensehttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1103539010025119744 …
Health Nerd added,
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
It's important to take into account who generated the evidence - who ran/funded the study - because it may be a source of bias. But it also might not YOU CAN'T JUST THROW IT OUT THAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Taubes also repeatedly says (paraphrasing) "when a new study comes out that disagrees with my opinions I pick through it to find out why it's wrong" I think that's very revealing
1 reply 2 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Science moves forward, ideally, using evidence. The evidence is generated and informs our theories accordingly That's not what Taubes is saying here at all
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likesShow 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)
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow 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
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow 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.
5 replies 1 retweet 21 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Could you understand the bit at the end about him accusing Stephan of using circular reasoning? I couldn't quite understand what Gary was saying.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
It sounded like nonsense tbh. I honestly have no idea how he could perceive Stephan's argument as circular, it was a very odd thing to say
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
The only thing I can come up with is: the hypothesis and the conclusion share some words therefore circular reasoning.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.