"It undermines science to make strong claims based on weak evidence. Moreover, it creates the appearance of bias or motivated reasoning. It results in massive loss of reputation (of those doing it) and broader distrust of science."
Exactly!
What would be fantastic is another post applying the same crit…
"It undermines science to make strong claims based on weak evidence. Moreover, it creates the appearance of bias or motivated reasoning. It results in massive loss of reputation (of those doing it) and broader distrust of science."
Exactly!
What would be fantastic is another post applying the same critical reasoning skills to the epistemologically challenged science of virology and the mountain of methodologically flawed vaccine research papers.
You're nailed it with this post Vinay!
"It undermines science to make strong claims based on weak evidence. Moreover, it creates the appearance of bias or motivated reasoning. It results in massive loss of reputation (of those doing it) and broader distrust of science."
Exactly!
What would be fantastic is another post applying the same critical reasoning skills to the epistemologically challenged science of virology and the mountain of methodologically flawed vaccine research papers.