-
but some people seem to think "well if tests aren't a 100% accurate, they must be 0% accurate SO TINFOIL HAT"
Yeah - that is a common thing though. Scientists are usually relatively straightforward about the fact that whatever they're doing is probably not 100% correct - but it is still very likely to be correct. Idiots read that and get the idea "oh well in that case anything is possible", and it's just... no.
This also applies to the idiots who think that because earlier scientific theories have been revised over time, this means everything and anything we know currently might just be totally wrong. No, that's not how that works. Isaac Asimov actually wrote a pretty good text on that called 'The relativity of wrong', which you can read here.
You are reading a single comment by @JWestland and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
SwissChap
@JWestland
Fucks sake first anti-vaccers, now 5G-ers and now "because corona tests aren't a 100% accurate, this is a manufactured pandemic" ejits on Facebook.
That's my FB argument of the day sorted, I wish more people understood some basic statistics. As is already written here "all models are somewhat wrong, but some are useful" but some people seem to think "well if tests aren't a 100% accurate, they must be 0% accurate SO TINFOIL HAT"