https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-new-york-times-publishes
You may have seen the recent "article" about puberty blockers in the far right New York Times: https://rdrama.net/post/310516/thing-that-never-happens-ends-up
Luckily the good Dr. Erin Reed has released a thorough skewering of all the lies told in the article. If you come across any Russian trolls on reddit trying to spread misinformation using this article make sure to tell them that the author is a known anti-trans activist (and personal friend of both JK Rowling and Jesse Singal) and link them this debunking from an actual scientist and researcher.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Note how the "fact" here is not an actual denial of the "claim".
Which is how I read this entire post - it doesn't attack the core fact of the NYT article, which appears to be that a study is being placed in the file drawer because it might be used in bad faith by chuds.
Worse, it implies that this is a good thing because the sample size was small. None of this matters in a preregistered study unless you actually messed up the design, like you didn't realize that your sample was too small to really test your hypotheses. But this is not being argued, so presumably this isn't the case.
The implicit argument that I've seen from leftoids is that is you have 49 pro-X studies and 1 anti-X study, then it's okay to spike the anti-X study since it was probably flawed or underpowered and if you publish it then the anti-X chuds will latch onto it and dismiss the 49 other studies and thus you will end up with worse outcomes. Even if it's Bad Science, the scientific method needs to bend towards the realities of modern-day politics and discourse and the fact that people (assuming we consider chuds to be people) cannot be trusted to process evidence correctly. It's not completely indefensible, but leftoids aren't quite willing to say this quiet part out loud yet and so you end up with irrelevant distractions and hand-waving like you see in this article.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context