<story><title>Facebook said my article was false – now the fact-checkers admit they were wrong</title><url>https://reason.com/2021/12/29/facebook-masks-false-information-science-feedback-wrong-covid/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>godelski</author><text>I think what many here and the writers of the article are missing is that you can both be truthful and misleading. These are not mutually exclusive. Let&amp;#x27;s start with the title: &amp;quot;The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science&amp;quot;. If you just read this (titles are very important and most people only read these) what will you take away? What the authors are trying to say is that this one study has problems.&lt;p&gt;But reading further in the article they rise doubt about masks in general, which is something we know is highly effective (purely from a physics point of view). They don&amp;#x27;t say masking is effective, they continually question if it is. This is really problematic. The study being wrong doesn&amp;#x27;t question _if_ masking is effective, but _how_ effective. There&amp;#x27;s a major difference in these statements and they can have readers, who are not experts and don&amp;#x27;t know scientific vernacular, to doubt and distrust more science than the article _technically_ draws into question. The article is suggesting that this is the norm and because this study is bad we get to question all the others.&lt;p&gt;So the problem here really is that while yes, the article only questions the one study they do so in a way that questions more fundamental knowledge that we have. Masking works. How much? Harder to say. There&amp;#x27;s a few old sayings such as &amp;quot;the devil never tells a full lie&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the devil sows doubt&amp;quot; (often with truth). These are the errors that the authors are making here.&lt;p&gt;I would conclude that they aren&amp;#x27;t inaccurate, but are misleading.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>umvi</author><text>&amp;gt; which is something we know is highly effective (purely from a physics point of view)&lt;p&gt;This in itself is a tricky claim to make with confidence. I agree we know certain types of masks (N95) are highly effective at preventing spread of airborne illness &lt;i&gt;if&lt;/i&gt; worn properly.&lt;p&gt;But... in the context of the article you referenced, are you prepared to defend the claim that cloth masks which haven&amp;#x27;t been washed for months and are frequently touched, adjusted, and worn incorrectly by kids and teens are &amp;quot;highly effective at preventing spread of airborne illness&amp;quot;?</text></comment>
<story><title>Facebook said my article was false – now the fact-checkers admit they were wrong</title><url>https://reason.com/2021/12/29/facebook-masks-false-information-science-feedback-wrong-covid/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>godelski</author><text>I think what many here and the writers of the article are missing is that you can both be truthful and misleading. These are not mutually exclusive. Let&amp;#x27;s start with the title: &amp;quot;The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science&amp;quot;. If you just read this (titles are very important and most people only read these) what will you take away? What the authors are trying to say is that this one study has problems.&lt;p&gt;But reading further in the article they rise doubt about masks in general, which is something we know is highly effective (purely from a physics point of view). They don&amp;#x27;t say masking is effective, they continually question if it is. This is really problematic. The study being wrong doesn&amp;#x27;t question _if_ masking is effective, but _how_ effective. There&amp;#x27;s a major difference in these statements and they can have readers, who are not experts and don&amp;#x27;t know scientific vernacular, to doubt and distrust more science than the article _technically_ draws into question. The article is suggesting that this is the norm and because this study is bad we get to question all the others.&lt;p&gt;So the problem here really is that while yes, the article only questions the one study they do so in a way that questions more fundamental knowledge that we have. Masking works. How much? Harder to say. There&amp;#x27;s a few old sayings such as &amp;quot;the devil never tells a full lie&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the devil sows doubt&amp;quot; (often with truth). These are the errors that the authors are making here.&lt;p&gt;I would conclude that they aren&amp;#x27;t inaccurate, but are misleading.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>crisdux</author><text>You are coming to this article with your own biases. You seem to be basing your analysis that we &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; masking is highly effective. That is not true. The evidence used to justify this policy is low quality(don&amp;#x27;t you remember the CDC hair salon study) and dependent on the precautionary principle. High quality evidence on masking has either low effect sizes or is inconclusive. It is certainly not settled science.</text></comment>