Introducing the extended sniff test (EST): A method for recreational hostile fact checking

"‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things."

‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'"

A word is being abused if ordinary intelligent readers would take it to have a particular meaning, but upon investigation, the meaning is found to be missing or changed.

Every word important to the conclusions of the study must be assessed. Abstract nouns are the most frequent victims of abuse

In the past 24 hours, I've been having a discussion with someone on Reddit who said "I'm an atheist, but I do actually believe in some version of god." It turns out their definition of "atheist" was different to the definition understood by most people. They meant that, even though they believe in a god, they don't act on that belief in any way: "In practice, I am an atheist."

This abuse of words doesn't only show up in studies. It can show up in everyday conversation.

Could someone explain me the joke? This post is tagged as satire and humour ... but it seems serious to me? Miscategorized, or am I just missing the point?

'Cuz if this is, you know, a satirical fake paper ... we Totally Need an actual Extended Sniff Test (or, at least, I do).

Not finished reading the whole article properly yet, kinda tired, but a couple of points I wanted to bring up:

• The 'Double' in 'Double Contextualization' is important: anecdotal evidence should never be sufficient to disprove a scientific claim, although it can indicate a need to be suspicious. Just because a statement doesn't align with your experiences, doesn't mean it's wrong: scientific data and lived experience are different lenses through which to see the world.
• I'd love to see a forum or web page annotation tool that allowed people to be more explicit about their citations. Virtually everywhere on the internet, and even in newspapers and other institutional sources, I see statements without any backing. Even a comment box like I type in here on Tildes, maybe it could pop up a modal or have a second box with a prompt "Have you cited sources for all of your claims?" and I have to put in at least one link, or highlight each sentence/paragraph and declare "no reference needed" or link one or more sources.