The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
because I'd like to have a conversation I'd like to change minds and I'd like to have to try and change my mind because in my view science is is a progress of constantly battling it so the people refining and strengthening your thinking changing your ideas
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
one of the marks of a very thoughtful person is someone whose beliefs are flexible and who's willing to acknowledge that something that they believed was once true or not true can be flipped
I think that when I've written this before I think in politics that may be a cop-out but I don't think in science or in medicine that should be viewed as a cop-out I think one should always be malleable and willing to sort of lean into new information
science is not about being right or wrong in an absolute sense. It's really about constantly updating our priors, understanding um the probability of something as new evidence becomes uh becomes emergent and that's how we should really work.