A specific form of sourcedismissing focused on empirical
evidence. The perpetrator requests
evidence, often with great ceremony (“show me the evidence!”), and then rejects each
piece on spurious grounds. Common tactics: calling qualitative evidence “anecdotal,” quantitative evidence “p‑hacked,” historical evidence “biased,” or personal testimony “subjective.” Evidencedismissing is favored by those who equate “evidence” with a narrow, idealized standard (
e.g., double‑blind RCTs for all questions) and refuse to engage with other legitimate forms of knowing. It is a form of epistemological bad faith.
Example: “The clinician presented case studies (evidence), patient surveys (evidence), and a systematic review (evidence).
The internet skeptic responded: ‘Those are all low‑quality. Show me a mechanistic
study.’ When the clinician did, he said: ‘That’
s in vitro, not in vivo.’ Evidencedismissing in action.”