[kelipso]

Pretending that we know a lot about something with high certainty so that you can get a one up on RFK Jr types is much more harmful, especially on the long term. The anti RFK Jr types end up being distrusted and put in the same bucket as the RFK Jr types for spreading misinformation.

[jjk166]

There are people distrustful of those who proclaim the earth round. There is no threshold of certainty where unreasonable skepticism will be eliminated, science is a tool for the reasonable.

[kelipso]

I don’t see how you can talk about science being a tool for the reasonable while advocating for “pro-science” misinformation.

[jjk166]

It's not misinformation. Reasonable people know that science determining something is true only means the current evidence strongly indicates its true, and that future results may call anything into question, but we should not expect any particular current finding to be false. It is misinformation to characterize the lack of absolute certainty, which is something science can never produce, as indicative that claims differing from the scientific consensus are equally supported by the evidence.

You don't need to worry about people losing trust in science because science does not require trust. Those who are unsatisfied with anything less than certainty need something other than science.

[kelipso]

We do need to worry about people losing trust in science because science depends on public funding.

And it’s not about complete certainty. It’s that it actually is very difficult to prove genetic heritability vs effects in the womb because you can’t do twin studies, going back to my original comment.

Pretending to be more certain about it than reality IS misinformation. When you lie, people believe you less. They don’t want to give you money anymore. As we are finding out currently. I think “pro-science” liars are much more harmful than whatever “science skeptics” they find online.

[throwuxiytayq]

> It’s that it actually is very difficult to prove genetic heritability vs effects in the womb because you can’t do twin studies, going back to my original comment.

You seem weirdly fixated on this point, and to your rhetorical disadvantage.

It is difficult to tell whether you are being accidentally or willfully ignorant. Maternal effects are well-accounted for in research. It is extremely improbable that we’ll ever find out that they have anything but a very minor influence on ASD compared to genetic factors.

[kelipso]

> Maternal effects are well-accounted for in research.

Lol, no it's not. Genetic heritability vs other types of heritability is not accounted for in multiple areas like height and IQ and it seems you are just ignorant of it.

> weirdly fixated

> rhetorical disadvantage

Are you just playing a debate game or having a discussion?

[throwuxiytayq]

Cool story, but I don’t really lose any sleep over anti-science idiots prompting themselves into sustained relevance over the long term, short term, or even the next electoral term, really.

[kelipso]

Maybe you would lose sleep over “pro-science” idiots going into sustained irrelevance as they spread their misinformation.