This is a variant of the "one true study" fallacy. For examples, antivaxers will sometimes challenge me to show them the "one study" that shows that vaccines are safe and effective. 1/https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1118128113022578689 …
-
-
In common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. 4/
Show this thread -
Antivaxers often misapply falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to scientific studies, with a twist. To them, if one study doesn't support the scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and effective, it overthrows the scientific consensus that they are. 5/
Show this thread -
Of course, one study rarely is enough to overthrow a scientific consensus, and the stronger the scientific consensus the more is needed to throw it into doubt. Not all studies are created equal, and studies cited by cranks are often among the crappiest. 6/
Show this thread -
Understanding science means understanding how to weigh large quantities of scientific evidence, something antivaxers and other cranks often fail spectacularly at. 7/7
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.