Scott Alexander criticizes the misleading use of 'no evidence' in science communication and suggests more nuanced alternatives. Longer summary

The post critiques the use of the phrase 'no evidence' in science communication, arguing that it's misleading and erodes public trust. Scott Alexander shows how the phrase is used inconsistently to mean both 'plausible but not yet proven' and 'definitively false'. He explains that this stems from a misunderstanding of how real truth-seeking works, which should be Bayesian rather than based on a simplistic null hypothesis model. The post concludes by suggesting better ways for journalists to communicate scientific uncertainty, including being more specific about the state of evidence and engaging with the arguments of those who believe differently. Shorter summary