>> there is literally not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that anyone could use in favor of snake oil.
> The author earlier accepted anecdotal evidence of alien abductions as a type of evidence.
> How is the author so sure there is no anecdotal evidence that snake oil works?
The full paragraph reads:
If the story is that all the world’s top doctors and scientists believe snake oil doesn’t work, then say so. “Scientists: Snake Oil Doesn’t Work”. This doesn’t have the same faux objectivity as “No Evidence Snake Oil Works”. It centers the belief in fallible scientists, as opposed to the much more convincing claim that there is literally not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that anyone could use in favor of snake oil. Maybe it would sound less authoritative. Breaking an addiction to false certainty is as hard as breaking any other addiction. But the first step is admitting you have a problem.
The author doesn't think there is literally no evidence for snake oil, which is why he argues against the "No Evidence Snake Oil Works" headline. I think that's quite clear if you look at the surrounding context instead of quoting only a fragment.
"Traditional keloid remedies have been in use for generations. The Yoruba of South Western Nigeria, for example, use several methods to reduce the symptoms of keloids. Boa constrictor oil from the snake's visceral fat and ointments of shea butter (from nuts of the Vitellaria paradoxa tree), locally produced in Nigeria, are two commonly used traditional medications. Some patients seen in the authors’ clinics in Osogbo and Ibadan, Nigeria who have been using either shea butter or snake fat, reported observable remission of symptoms and swelling." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905615/
Thus, there CANNOT BE A "convincing claim that there is literally not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that anyone could use in favor of snake oil". (Remember, we're accepting that personal accounts of alien abductions counts as evidence.)
Breaking an addiction to false certainty is indeed hard.
I think there can be convincing claims that convince people of falsehoods, in which case the claims are also misleading. If "convincing" were replaced by "convincing, but misleading" or "convincing, but incorrect", would you then agree with the paragraph?
My basic claim is the author did a slight-of-hand by accepting eye-witness claims to alien abduction to be counted as evidence for alien abductions, then rejecting the existence of easily demonstrated evidence that could be used to support the effectiveness snake oil.
I cannot answer your question because I don't understand the author's viewpoint. That's because to me the phrase "no evidence" is not really related to the 'belief in fallible scientists' but to the belief in fallible claims.
This could be because I was trained in science, and the author is trying to make some point about poor science communications by scientists and journalists.
But the author is engaged in some rather poor science communications, by misrepresenting the BMJ paper, by using a mutable definition of what evidence means, and by lumping everything claims from 'zero evidence' to 'no hard evidence' into a single characterization.
> It is deliberately misleading to make general claims that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work for CoViD-19. It is even more misleading to claim that “the evidence” proves that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work.
> To understand this, consider the use of parachutes.
> The author earlier accepted anecdotal evidence of alien abductions as a type of evidence.
> How is the author so sure there is no anecdotal evidence that snake oil works?
The full paragraph reads:
If the story is that all the world’s top doctors and scientists believe snake oil doesn’t work, then say so. “Scientists: Snake Oil Doesn’t Work”. This doesn’t have the same faux objectivity as “No Evidence Snake Oil Works”. It centers the belief in fallible scientists, as opposed to the much more convincing claim that there is literally not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that anyone could use in favor of snake oil. Maybe it would sound less authoritative. Breaking an addiction to false certainty is as hard as breaking any other addiction. But the first step is admitting you have a problem.
The author doesn't think there is literally no evidence for snake oil, which is why he argues against the "No Evidence Snake Oil Works" headline. I think that's quite clear if you look at the surrounding context instead of quoting only a fragment.