- cross-posted to:
- nerdscience
- cross-posted to:
- nerdscience
A disturbing number of TikTok videos about autism include claims that are “patently false,” study finds::A recent study published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders found that a significant majority (73%) of informational videos on TikTok tagged with “#Autism” contain inaccurate or overgeneralized information about autism. Despite the prevalence of misinformation, these videos have amassed billions of views, highlighting the potential for widespread misconceptions about autism on the platform. …
I had someone yesterday claim I was wrong about a pretty complicated scientific thing but they were vague and didn’t say why I was wrong.
I have a background in that topic, so it only took a second to find a scientific study to back me up…
They immediately replied with an article that had nothing to do with what anyone was talking about, and when I told them that, they refused to explain what was relevant, called me rude, and blocked me.
Their mind was made up, and they just picked the first result off whatever they googled and assumed it backed them up.
Idiots “doing their own research” rarely works out well, they’re not trying to learn anything, just win an argument they don’t understand
By the way, I’ve seen Google displaying halucinated AI written articles as the main, highlited result.
Yep, ask Google something like “water causes covid” and you’ll likely get some idiot saying water causing COVID because that matches your search.
Do you happen to remember the search query? This is very interesting
This is perpetuated by some shitty internet personalities too.
“You will NEVER believe it, this study peer reviewed paper TOTALY DEBUNKS !!!”
(links to a paper that indicates the exact opposite of that)
Sounds about right Glares in existential horror at flat earthers
That’s the problem.
We humans have goals, as in “satisfaction from winning”, or as in “solace from reaching some idea the correct way so it’d likely be true”.
Theirs is not to be correct, it’s to defeat you, to win, to dominate etc.
A conversation where your counterpart see themselves as your opponent just should end once you see that. Also it would be fair to inform them that this is ape behavior, but sometimes unwise sadly.
Also the approach that an argument as in “opposition to each other” leads to truth is more or less the same thing as dialectics. And dialectics do not have any scientific value (we are not pursuing studies of “scientific communism” here).