
explaining another person’s point of view as clearly and fairly as you can, even if you strongly disagree… (Wikipedia 2018) (Wikipedia 2006)
[the ideological Turing test:] state opposing views as clearly and persuasively as their proponents” (Caplan 2021)
“[steelmanning:] addressing the best form of the other person’s argument, even if it’s not the one they presented” (Messinger 2012)
predatory unmerited medical practices
Teams document an item that satisfies the most criteria for spotting a quack. (Barrett 2018)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. [Sagan 1993, “Broca’s brain”, p. 69]
Advancement in science is predicated on making novel claims.
Yet, we need to publish non-novel findings to overcome publication bias, for example.
Too many implausible, one-off, gee-whiz, studies.
EBM is a vital and positive influence on the practice of medicine, but it has its limitations [including] … the focus on clinical trial results to the exclusion of scientific plausibility. (Contributors 2020)
As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. (SmithPell 2003)
Did we address everything in today’s GDoc?
You have a friend who is fond of experimenting with dangerous self-help remedies; what would you recommend?