Suggestion for scientists and science communicators/journalists:
When the available evidence to support/rule out a particular hypothesis is little to none, let's stop saying "there is no evidence for X" and instead say "we are still gathering evidence to know whether X is true".
When the available evidence to support/rule out a particular hypothesis is little to none, let's stop saying "there is no evidence for X" and instead say "we are still gathering evidence to know whether X is true".
Watching #InTheSameBreath @HBO documentary drove home the damage that can be caused by experts making statements like there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission or masks protecting against Covid etc.
Could have been avoided if experts said we're still looking into this.
Could have been avoided if experts said we're still looking into this.
Saying that there is "no evidence" for something implies that a search for evidence has been conducted and turned up nothing.
In many cases, investigators are still in the process of searching for evidence. A premature assertion of "no evidence" would mislead the public.
In many cases, investigators are still in the process of searching for evidence. A premature assertion of "no evidence" would mislead the public.
People are off to the races with extreme hypotheticals.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "the available evidence is inconsistent with (insert your extreme hypothesis here)".
For example, the available evidence is inconsistent with a #PopsicleOrigin of Covid-19.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "the available evidence is inconsistent with (insert your extreme hypothesis here)".
For example, the available evidence is inconsistent with a #PopsicleOrigin of Covid-19.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
