"There's no evidence of that" is the only thing you can say when someone just makes something up and presents it as true The logic you're displaying is exactly how cranks get a foothold ("Well can you prove it DIDN'T happen")
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @doctorow
That's very true, which is why it's complicated Because it's also said when there is evidence being ignored or dismissed They would have a stronger case for "there's no evidence" if they had read her book, which they admit they haven't (disclaimer: I haven't either)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @clarkgwillison @doctorow
No, I shouldn't have to pay someone money and put a lot of effort into listening to them if they make wild claims that seem obviously false on the face of it Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @doctorow
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, which these probably don't have But you can't honestly say "there's no evidence for these claims" when you really mean "I think these claims are obviously false, so I won't be spending time or money to evaluate them"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @clarkgwillison @doctorow
Sure you can How am I supposed to know if evidence exists somewhere in the universe, I'm not God
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @doctorow
Well if you're not God, why go around claiming "there's no evidence" for X or Y? As you rightfully pointed out it's literally something you can't know So such a claim is always an overreach
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
More prosaically, in the example we're discussing there's a book involved that the authors decided not to read So when they say "there's no evidence for X and Y" it doesn't take a genius to ask the question "well, did you try looking in the book?"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @clarkgwillison @doctorow
No, because the book doesn't constitute independent evidence, the book is just a collection of her claims, and if I can tell she's a liar just by fact checking the claims she made outside the book why wouldn't the book just be more lies
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
There could be truths in there also (not saying there are, but it's happened before) The article in the OP has lies in it (saying "there's no evidence" when they mean they don't know of any), should we dismiss the rest of it's claims because of those? Obviously not
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @clarkgwillison @arthur_affect
Clark Willison Retweeted Arthur Chu
Point taken re: colloquial use However I think my point still stands: science and scholarship demands more precision with language than propaganda. To eschew that precision is to signal to your reader you're more engaged with the latter than the formerhttps://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1259729275868950528?s=19 …
Clark Willison added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.