What you've described sounds exactly like confirmation bias.
-
-
Replying to @greggentry1 @GodDoesnt
It did actually happen. We didn't just think it did. Still open to good stuff coming from it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt
Seralini's mice "studies," weren't made up, either. Submitting to ever less prestigious journals. P-hacking. I see little difference.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt
Ex 1: I have a theory, gender studies is intellectually flawed. I'm rejected at NORMA, but submit to another. Look, I proved my point!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @greggentry1 @GodDoesnt
Helen Pluckrose Retweeted Helen Pluckrose
That's a refutation of a claim a hoax alone proves GS worthless but my point was opposite.https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/867136017123422213 …
Helen Pluckrose added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt
That the hoax confirms people's existing conclusion (bias)? Like Wakefield did for vaccines being bad? Seralini for GMO's being unhealthy?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @greggentry1 @GodDoesnt
Ppl are certainly using it to confirm biases rather than taking it as it is. Very interesting how they spin it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt
I, for one, am reading what the authors wrote. "On the evidence, our suspicion was justified."pic.twitter.com/gBPK7ggeWV
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @greggentry1 @GodDoesnt
And u think that means ' on the evidence of one hoax,gender studies is worthless' do you? Certainly easier to refute
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That's a stretch to begin with & doesn't stand up if you read the rest.
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.