User Tools

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
relevancy:authority:false_authority:index [28.01.25, 14:13:10] – [Quotes] sascharelevancy:authority:false_authority:index [15.08.26, 20:21:04] (current) – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation sascha
Line 85: Line 85:
 Unfortunately, this is by no means a marginal phenomenon. Even in respected publications, there appear time and again publications that, on closer inspection, turn out to be erroneous or even clearly falsified. In certain magazines or even entire fields of research, this has become the rule rather than the exception (See also: <span maniculus "more information on this topic:">[[glossary:cargo_cult#cargo-cult_science|Cargo Cult Science]]</span>). Unfortunately, this is by no means a marginal phenomenon. Even in respected publications, there appear time and again publications that, on closer inspection, turn out to be erroneous or even clearly falsified. In certain magazines or even entire fields of research, this has become the rule rather than the exception (See also: <span maniculus "more information on this topic:">[[glossary:cargo_cult#cargo-cult_science|Cargo Cult Science]]</span>).
  
-So to really be able to judge whether a particular study is really relevant to the discussion in question, one has to be an expert in the field in question. Most of us probably aren’t – and a reference to an authority whose [[relevancy:index|relevance]] one can’t really assess should first of all be taken as a warning sign of possible [[glossary:bullshit|bullshit]].+So to really be able to judge whether a particular study is really relevant to the discussion in question, one has to be an expert in the field in question. Most of us probably aren’t – and a reference to an authority whose [[relevance:index|relevance]] one can’t really assess should first of all be taken as a warning sign of possible [[glossary:bullshit|bullshit]].
  
 Of course, this is not a basis on which one could reject scientific studies with results that one does not like. It is, however, an indication of a possibly unfair discussion tactic (for example, it might be a <span maniculus "see also:">[[rhetoric:gish-galopp#study_gallop|“study gallop”]]</span>). Of course, this is not a basis on which one could reject scientific studies with results that one does not like. It is, however, an indication of a possibly unfair discussion tactic (for example, it might be a <span maniculus "see also:">[[rhetoric:gish-galopp#study_gallop|“study gallop”]]</span>).

This website uses cookies. By using the website, you agree with storing cookies on your computer. Also, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy. If you do not agree, please leave the website.

More information