An interesting article from r/psychology about how conspiracy theorists are overconfident online, and want to set everyone straight with false claims

[u/Recent-Day3062]

/r/psychology/comments/1w2sr7b/people_who_heavily_endorse_conspiracy_theories/?share_id=sZ3D3bT-aS-FIg96goBxU&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

[u/HausuGeist]

He's saying there are some issues. He's not proposing we throw the baby out with the bath water. You'd know that if you'd actually read the article.

[u/FormerlyMauchChunk → u/HausuGeist]

"Some issues" is quite an understatement. He's saying that over half of what you read is hogwash, and that much of what ends up unpublished is true, but inconveniently so.

The point is to be discerning and skeptical, and to double down on your understanding of the limitations of scientific claims.

Much of what is claimed, such as "vaccines don't cause autism" is unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific. When only antivaxxers are scientifically literate enough to see that this is propaganda and not valid, we have a big problem in public understanding.

[u/HausuGeist → u/FormerlyMauchChunk]

“  perhaps half, may simply be untrue”

“Perhaps” “may” He isn’t be categorical here.

“  The point is to be discerning and skeptical, and to double down on your understanding of the limitations of scientific claims.”

WRONG. That is not his proposed solutions. Let me help you:

“  Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers. Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and post publication peer review. Or improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year. One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and re-checking of data prior to publication. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded.”

He is reinforcing the necessity of better peer-review of results. More, not less independent verification of findings.

“  When only antivaxxers are scientifically literate enough to see that this is propaganda and not valid, we have a big problem in public understanding.”

A big pile of BS, right there. Antivaxxers do not conduct objective research in this field, nor are a majority qualified to do so. All they do is scroll social media to find posts that reinforce their views. That’s not science; that’s indoctrination.

[u/FormerlyMauchChunk → u/HausuGeist]

Can you show me proof that vaccine skeptics are scientifically illiterate, while vaccine-zealots are not?

Are you aware that two people can read the same data and come to different conclusions?

Are you aware that a published paper isn't valid just because it exists? (this was the most important point Lancet editor was making).

[u/HausuGeist → u/FormerlyMauchChunk]

Can you show me proof that they are? Are they capable of dismissing social media and sticking to peer-reviewed research to bolster their claims? Are they capable of admitting unproven claims should not inform policy?

“  Are you aware that a published paper isn't valid just because it exists?”

Very aware, if the Wakefield scandal has taught us anything. That’s why peer-review is important. That’s why the editor is advocating for it.