[cogman10]

What's the solution to Gish Gallopers?

The issue this article is talking about is you can very quickly generate hundreds of bad studies and outright lies that take decades to discredit. And even after all that effort, those studies will STILL be cited not because of the validity, but the narrative.

For example, vaccines an autism. We have so many high quality studies proving with as much certainty as you can in medicine that vaccines do not cause autism. Yet that's a claim that hasn't died off yet (And Mr. Wakefield's fraud study with the initial lie is STILL cited as if there were some sort of conspiracy to cover it up).

So what's the solution? It's easier to quickly lie than it is to experiment and prove. It's easier to falsify data than it is to prove data was falsified.

What other choice is there but to lean on consensus and reputation?

[bstockton]

Well, one strategy would be to preemptively rebut common misrepresentations and meaningless critiques, I do agree scientists could benefit from this technique. And if it's just misinformation with no merit, use Hitchen's Razor.

However, established science has been wrong before about things there was a consensus on. We should investigate evidence that casts doubt on consensus if there is some merit, even if it is painstaking. It's one of the less sexy and tedious aspects of science, nevertheless important.

[cogman10]

> However, established science has been wrong before about things there was a consensus on.

As time goes on, this is something that only becomes more rare. How many established scientific consensus's proven wrong can you think of in the past 30 years?

That is the nature of science. We aren't going to discover that, all along the world was actually flat. Similarly, we aren't going to discover that global warming isn't real or evolution doesn't exist.

Some areas of science have unbelievable amounts of evidence of support. Yet you often find those facts to be challenged the most when the come in conflict with profits (the fossil fuel industry).

[mcguire]

"Well, one strategy would be to preemptively rebut common misrepresentations and meaningless critiques..."

The reply: "What's that got to do with anything I said? I'm saying <a rephrased version of one or more of the misrepresentations>." If they reply with a different misrepresentation, it becomes the Gish Gallop; they will eventually cycle back around to one of your rebutted misrepresentations, but by then everyone will have forgotten your rebuttal.

"And if it's just misinformation with no merit, use Hitchen's Razor."

The response: "See, they're not even responding to our evidence! They're silencing dissent!"

"We should investigate evidence that casts doubt on consensus if there is some merit, even if it is painstaking."

Which is one of the points of this article: while you are reconsidering the evidence for thermodynamics, you are not addressing the problem. They've won. This is why it took thirty years after the original Surgeon General's report to begin to address cigarette smoking. This is why humanity has done essentially nothing about climate change.

Established science has been wrong before, but when facing an immediate problem the current consensus is probably where you want to put your money.