> Science communicators are using the same term - “no evidence” - to mean:
> 1. This thing is super plausible, and honestly very likely true, but we haven’t checked yet, so we can’t be sure.
> 2. We have hard-and-fast evidence that this is false, stop repeating this easily debunked lie.
> This is utterly corrosive to anybody trusting science journalism.
I rather suspect that having independent two exits from the building does make us safer during a fire, and that this article simply represent lazy unprofessional journalism. The thorough lack of outsider opinions (from anybody other than the author and the subject of the article) strongly reinforces this initial impression.
I use that phrase when attempting to shed some light on a topic - but I use it in the strictest sense, to assert that there is no evidence to support whatever hypothesis is being presented by the prior argument.
Burden of proof is a key idea I think - though sometimes it can be hard to ascertain where that should lie.
Unless you're speaking to a specialized audience, probably better not to. Language is about being understood, not being right. If you use a phrase that is commonly used incorrectly, and you use it correctly, and your audience misunderstands you - you are communicating badly. Better to simply use phrases that aren't as commonly used incorrectly.
> there’s no evidence that Americans and Canadians are any safer from structure fires than our neighbors around the world
Scott Alexander's recent article made me sensitive to the phrase "no evidence". https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence.... Alexander writes:
> Science communicators are using the same term - “no evidence” - to mean:
> 1. This thing is super plausible, and honestly very likely true, but we haven’t checked yet, so we can’t be sure.
> 2. We have hard-and-fast evidence that this is false, stop repeating this easily debunked lie.
> This is utterly corrosive to anybody trusting science journalism.
I rather suspect that having independent two exits from the building does make us safer during a fire, and that this article simply represent lazy unprofessional journalism. The thorough lack of outsider opinions (from anybody other than the author and the subject of the article) strongly reinforces this initial impression.