the ideological bias scientists have when interpreting evidence
Surprised you didn’t get downvoted here. It’s like if you tell people science is done by humans and humans arre flawed people flip out and call you a science-denier.
People on Lemmy like to argue and I’m taking a strong stance on something here. With those two things in mind, I’m expecting some level of push-back. (Which, admittedly, has yet to materialize.)
People on the internet will literally take the worst interpretation of what you’re saying in order to argue against it. While you’re stuck clarifying your point, they just keep attacking (often without advancing any competing thoughts of their own).
If I weren’t so passionate about standing behind my comments I wouldn’t keep falling for it, but somehow I do every time.
I think of Chat GPT like a sometimes-inaccurate-calculator. There may be some legitimate uses for the technology, but it’s still nice to know how to multiply numbers without it.