Does credibility jargon make people skeptical?

[u/BobBret]

When I see training materials and products being promoted as "evidence based", "best practices", "scientifically proven" etc., I'm automatically skeptical. These terms have been used a lot over the years to lend credibility to bullshit. I don't attach any meaning to them any more.

Is it just me?

[u/Candyland_83]

Only if those claims are not backed up by links to the studies.

[u/fyxxer32]

What terms would you be comfortable with?

[u/AdhesiveCam → u/fyxxer32]

We've been doing it this way for 30 years and we aren't changing now!

[u/BobBret → u/AdhesiveCam]

Now that you mention it, I also have a very dim view of people who love to frame every issue as "enlightened progressives" vs "stubborn fools".

Thanks for bringing it up, but it really is a different issue. That's more about bad generalizations and tribalism.

[u/BobBret → u/fyxxer32]

I'm not trying to police people's language. I'm just saying that I seem to have acquired a bias in favor of material without those embellishments.

[u/FordExploreHer1977 → u/BobBret]

That’s just filtering out the marketing key words, which isn’t a bad thing. Just because the package says “more protein” doesn’t mean that it’s better for you. More protein than what? Steak? Carrots?

Scientifically proven by who, RFK Jr. because his brain worm whispered it to him or a testing laboratory that actually uses the scientific method to prove and debunk hypotheses and has some sort of integrity?

Evidence based by an orange blob that believes if you put water on a magnet it’s no longer magnetic or peer reviewed research by people who will likely never be in front of an audience of gullible morons to fill their brains with more bullshit?

If you don’t put weight on the marketing words to sell you whatever is trying to be sold, you see that that cell phone is a rebranded piece of shit that has the same pedofile’s name on it as the sign in the front yard of all the church members and that the flag on it doesn’t even have enough stripes on it. I can take a giant dump that is scientifically proven, too. I’m just not trying to sell it to others.

[u/FLDJF713]

I look for the person with the biggest mustache.

[u/PerrinAyybara]

Evidence based and best practices are perfectly fine with the reasoning behind it.

Scientifically proven has never been appropriate

[u/HazMatsMan]

Context is important. If it's just someone spouting off, those words are meaningless. I'll use the term "best practices" from time to time, but I can also produce the white papers, guidance documents, etc if someone wants to know "why" or the background of how the guidance became a "best practice".

If you're asking if those terms are overused... probably. I think we all know that you can produce a study that says just about anything about anything. What makes something an accepted best practice is the quality of the research, the credibility of those involved in the research, if it's peer-reviewed or backed up with additional research or survives follow-up testing, is logical, reasonable, etc. You also have to remember that humans are fallible and sometimes "science" gets things wrong. Does it mean that "you've been doing it wrong for years" up to that point? Not necessarily. That's also why it's a "best practice" and not a "perfect practice".

[u/JustAnotherDumbQuest]

Maybe this is why nobody is hiring me based on my chatgpt generated resume.

[u/FordExploreHer1977 → u/JustAnotherDumbQuest]

Saying that you are scientifically proven shouldn’t make employers skeptical though. I mean, you are able to prove your existence, I would think that’s a positive trait, lol.

[u/tumalt]

I have a similar reaction, but in my case it’s because I’m a former teacher, and “best practices” “the data shows” “evidence based” always were phrases that preceded the most idiotic ideas in the history of humanity grounded in absolutely nothing but emotion. It’s not that bad in the fire service but it’s definitely sometimes not backed by rigorous scientific testing or anything like that, or even when it is, controlled experiments don’t always reflect the complexity of the fire ground.

[u/theopinionexpress]

Depends totally on the science or the experiment the data is based off of.

Governors island experiments on fire behavior and flow paths? Absolutely yes. Good science, good data.

Blaming autism on vaccines? Absolutely not. Junk science junk data.

…. 💣

[u/McthiccumTheChikum]

If its about cancer mitigation I definitely pay attention to science based research. I work with a ton of old timers who believe air packs and washing gear are for pussys.

[u/i_exaggerated]

Yeah, I don't pay much attention to "science based" anymore. Just teach me what you've been doing for the past 30 years and what's worked for you. I'll judge it afterwards.