Coyne and Michael Sharpe on Twitter

retweeted by Sharpe:


clearly he didn't read it all:
"
Distinguish trolls from critics

It is also worth pointing out that while you should be on the lookout for disruptive trolls that attempt to provoke or criticize you unfairly, not all forms of criticism qualifies as trolling. There appears to be an increasing trend of dismissing critics as “trolls” because the arguments they bring up are difficult to respond to. Similarly, another popular trend is to portray critics as trolls by posting screenshots of a handful of troll comments and pretending they are representative of the entire population of critics. This is deeply dishonest tactic and should be avoided."

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/06/16/scientific-skepticism-and-internet-trolls/
 
Sly Saint said:
retweeted by Sharpe:


clearly he didn't read it all:
"
Distinguish trolls from critics

It is also worth pointing out that while you should be on the lookout for disruptive trolls that attempt to provoke or criticize you unfairly, not all forms of criticism qualifies as trolling. There appears to be an increasing trend of dismissing critics as “trolls” because the arguments they bring up are difficult to respond to. Similarly, another popular trend is to portray critics as trolls by posting screenshots of a handful of troll comments and pretending they are representative of the entire population of critics. This is deeply dishonest tactic and should be avoided."

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/06/16/scientific-skepticism-and-internet-trolls/
Click to expand...

Maybe that clarification should be added after his tweet, and then the conversation snippet captured before he maybe deletes his tweet, or tries to accuse the person posting it of being a troll? :)
 
Sharpe linking to that site was probably a result of this article, which briefly mentioned PACE in a discussion about antipsychiatry/criticism of of psychiatry:

Science gets many things right and updates and improves the stuff it gets wrong

Jack continues:

"As scientists, we must realize that science gets things wrong all the time. For example, the 2011 paper in the prestigious Lancet journal made claims about the positive effect of CBT and graded exercise on sufferers of ME/CFS. Most of the findings were later debunked, but not until health organizations began implementing the results of the incorrect findings. ME/CFS is still often considered to be a psychosomatic disorder, even though there is scant evidence to support this."

Ah, the classical “science has been wrong before!1” gambit. It is certainly true that science sometimes makes mistakes. But this has to be weighed against all the other times when science does get things right or makes highly empirically accurate models of reality. It is not enough to merely point out a few mistakes and then use this in an effort to undermine science. You have to push away confirmation bias, take it all into account and are not really allowed to cherry-pick selected examples.

Indeed, scientists were among the first to criticize the PACE study and follow-up papers. This is not a weakness of science, but one of it strengths.
Click to expand...

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/01/23/mailbag-anti-psychiatry-fallacies-and-falsehoods/

To me it seemed that the discussion (which continued briefly in the now closed comments) glossed over the interesting details and was pretty empty and driven by prior ideological assumptions.

Still, cheering to see PACE being casually used as an example of science getting it wrong, even if they didn't go into all the details (and seemed to assume 'among the first' critics of PACE started in 2015!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom