This has little or nothing to do with it, as the antivaccine movement has long shown. Prominent members have access, either themselves or through sympathetic contacts. They’ve long used that access to cherry pick and misrepresent the science.https://twitter.com/BettinaRyll/status/1342921143116845061 …
-
-
I’m all for more open access. I do not, however, expect it to decrease the severity of the problem we have with cranks that I described. If anything, it might make the problem worse by making it easier to cherry pick, a risk I’m willing to take.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Cranks and deniers work backwards. They conclude their belief is true, based on little or no evidence, and then they look for anything that supports it. They aren't interested in an objective consideration of the literature, or in finding out facts.
-
That's just a perfect description of pseudoscience. Also called 'verification'- that's what we all did in the Middle Ages. Btw, it's not black and white- cherry-picking evidence happens everywhere...That's a good book on it btwhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/books/pseudoscience …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Additionally, there are intentional strategies to suppress and create doubt around science when it conflicts with political goals
Thanks. 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.