Thread by @eatcookwrite

This is a point I made back in 2014:
When we label people as anti-science, we are usually talking about someone who considers themselves pro-science but is just particularly bad at it. 1/10
fafdl.org/blog/2017/04/2…

https://twitter.com/TamarHaspel/status/1419998980923133955

We've all had countless encounters with people who believe obviously erroneous things who then turn out to have a bottomless library of bookmarks for study after study after study to support their view. 2/10

I first saw it among friends and acquaintances during the fluoride debate in my hometown of Portland, OR in 2013. They were just really bad at separating the signal from the noise and evaluating the credibility of sources while fearful and anchored to the status quo. 3/10

Then for years, in debating the merits of biotech and pesticides in agriculture.

People frequently invert the Pyramid of Evidence and go dumpster diving for evidence that supports the conclusions they want to believe. 4/10

The problem isn't their trust in science, it's that they start with a conclusion and trust every hypothesis-generating mouse and in-vitro study, every poorly designed statistical fishing expedition that supports their conclusion... 5/10
fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/3…

... while ignoring stronger studies, meta-analyses, and literature reviews. They support their beliefs with science, they are just bad at it.* 6/10

science20.com/marc_brazeau/h…

All that being said. It is admittedly difficult to refrain from labeling someone being bad at science as 'antiscience' when it feels like they are being intentionally obtuse and obstinate in rejecting a clear and broad scientific consensus.** 7/10

I can't say that I've been successful in the 7 years since I first identified the issue to myself and wrote about it. But I do try most of the time. I've probably been backsliding lately as I lose patience to the Groundhog Day nature of it all. 8/10

* Yes, I'm aware of the 'Garbage In, Garbage Out' pitfalls of bad meta-analyses. You are still better off taking the conclusions of the systemic lit as the null-hypothesis than raking a pile of in-vitro and mouse study leaves into your own pile and pretending it's a fort. 9/10

** This was particularly true circa 2013 when there was considerable energy expended on denying that a scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs even existed, centered around the ENSSER petition. 10/10

phys.org/news/2013-10-s…