• @Arkouda@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    119 hours ago

    It’s not the amount of evidence, it’s the quality of it.

    Quality evidence has an inherent quantity wouldn’t you say?

    • @theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16 hours ago

      No? I don’t care if the whole world is wrong, some evidence is strong enough to convince me forever, even if it’s subjective

      Quality is all that matters. One incontrovertible fact I can poke and prod myself means more than millions of subjective accounts. Or even all of science - I’ll rearrange my entire model around a new fact if it’s compelling enough

      • @Arkouda@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        16 hours ago

        One quality study is enough to convince you of something, even if it has never been reproduced or reviewed?

        • @theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 hours ago

          Sure. If it fills a gap in my model, I don’t need any proof at all. Why would I? It just makes sense. Of course I’m going to tentatively fit it in

          And if a study convincingly disproves it, I’ll just as quickly discard the tentative idea. Why wouldn’t I? It made sense, but it didn’t math out.

          But this is all in the context of my model. It’s a big web of corroboration

          You can’t convince me global warming isn’t happening, because I’m watching it in real time. No amount of studies are doing to do more than inform the facts of my lived experience… I’m the primary source, I was there