Addendum To "No Evidence" Post
Scott provides a real-world example of how the phrase 'no evidence' can be misused in science reporting, contrasting it with a prediction market's more nuanced response.
The day after I wrote The Phrase “No Evidence” Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication, FT published this article:
Like many uses of “no evidence”, they meant that one particular study of this complicated question had failed to reject the null hypothesis.
Here’s what happened to Metaculus’ prediction tournament when the same study came out:
The consensus prediction dropped from 72% chance that it was less lethal, to 63% chance. But it quickly recovered, and is now up to 80%.
This is an unusually clear example of the difference between classical and Bayesian ways of thinking.
