Stepping back, is this simply pointing out that Rule 34 also applies to scientific research? If a claim can be made, there is a scientific study that "proves" the claim true.
If someone came to me with some outlandish claim, "Studies show that singing in the shower lowers cancer risk," I honestly won't be surprised if they could produce 2-4 white papers published in modern journals in support of it. So much of modern science seems to be reading between the lines and meta-analyses of scientific studies.
Scott Alexander's review of Ivermectin[0] is a great example of this. Bold claim is made, everyone divides into two camps, and in fact both camps have multiple peer reviewed studies backing their side, and to arrive at some semblance of understanding of the topic you need to spend hours diving into the studies and checking off boxes: were they peer reviewed, were there confounders, do the authors have a history of fraud, and on and on and on.
If someone came to me with some outlandish claim, "Studies show that singing in the shower lowers cancer risk," I honestly won't be surprised if they could produce 2-4 white papers published in modern journals in support of it. So much of modern science seems to be reading between the lines and meta-analyses of scientific studies.
Scott Alexander's review of Ivermectin[0] is a great example of this. Bold claim is made, everyone divides into two camps, and in fact both camps have multiple peer reviewed studies backing their side, and to arrive at some semblance of understanding of the topic you need to spend hours diving into the studies and checking off boxes: were they peer reviewed, were there confounders, do the authors have a history of fraud, and on and on and on.
[0] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-y...