4 ms·

I thought the author actually did a pretty good job at parsing the difference between the biotech teams at established VC firms and the people who invested in T

I thought the author actually did a pretty good job at parsing the difference between the biotech teams at established VC firms and the people who invested in Theranos, explaining in measurable and falsifiable terms how the former differ from the latter (academic background, require peer-reviewed studies before investing, etc).

CPLX 11y ago
Well yes, that's the fundamental trick of a No True Scotsman argument.[0] The headline reads "Don't Blame Silicon Valley" not "Don't Blame Top Tier Silicon Valley Experienced Life Science VC Teams" This is the article's thesis: "It is tempting to see Theranos as another example of Silicon Valley hype — a company based on a wisp of an unproven idea becomes a multibillion-dollar phenomenon with the backing of pump-and-dump venture capitalists. In fact, however, Silicon Valley’s most experienced investors in start-ups saw red flags at Theranos before anyone else. The Theranos saga shows just how well Silicon Valley does its homework" A corrected sentence could be something like "The Theranos saga, while showing how SV fundraising hype can incinerate billions of dollars, also has a small story involving a few specific guys who know life science who aren't as easily fooled." But they didn't write that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Person A: You can't blame Silicon Valley for this Person B: But these people are all Silicon Valley players Person A: Ah yes, but they're not true Silcon Valley players
- leroy_masochist 11y ago
  I'm familiar with what an NTS argument entails and I continue to disagree. I think the author's point could be restated as, "if you're going to say that what happened at Theranos discredits Silicon Valley, then let's define what we mean by 'Silicon Valley'". Specifically, the author is pointing out that "Silicon Valley", when used colloquially, might mean "Silicon Valley venture capital firms with a track record" or it might mean "any qualified investor calling themselves an 'angel' or a 'VC' who buys private company stock". The difference between the former and the latter is not purely rhetorical, as in the definition of the NTS fallacy; it is, as I mentioned in my previous comment, measurable and falsifiable. And the author is basically saying that people in the former group should not be stigmatized by the failings of certain people in the latter group.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    Tim Draper is a Silicon Valley VC with a track record. He was apparently an accessory to his daughter's best friend ripping off billions of dollars in investor money based entirely on hype and insiderism, descending into a scandal currently under federal investigation. In Silicon Valley. Page Mill Road to be specific. Getting op-eds placed in the NYT isn't going to take the stink off this one. Though I am sympathetic to the instinct to try.
    - Alex3917 11y ago
      > Tim Draper is a Silicon Valley VC with a track record. Him investing in Theranos only at best shows that he thought that it had been appropriately de-risked enough to justify a tiny pre-seed investment, not that it was later de-risked enough to justify the seed, A, B, etc.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    So you are saying that Silicon Valley is "the start-up ecosystem built around the 15 or 20 venture capital firms in the tech sector and a similar number in life sciences that account for almost all of the successful companies." That might come as a surprise to most of the people who think they work there.
    - leroy_masochist 11y ago
      Within the specific context of a statement like, "Silicon Valley was wrong about Company X", yes. Within the general context of what "Silicon Valley" means, no. Is that fair?

CPLX 11y ago

Well yes, that's the fundamental trick of a No True Scotsman argument.[0] The headline reads "Don't Blame Silicon Valley" not "Don't Blame Top Tier Silicon Valley Experienced Life Science VC Teams" This is the article's thesis: "It is tempting to see Theranos as another example of Silicon Valley hype — a company based on a wisp of an unproven idea becomes a multibillion-dollar phenomenon with the backing of pump-and-dump venture capitalists. In fact, however, Silicon Valley’s most experienced investors in start-ups saw red flags at Theranos before anyone else. The Theranos saga shows just how well Silicon Valley does its homework" A corrected sentence could be something like "The Theranos saga, while showing how SV fundraising hype can incinerate billions of dollars, also has a small story involving a few specific guys who know life science who aren't as easily fooled." But they didn't write that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Person A: You can't blame Silicon Valley for this Person B: But these people are all Silicon Valley players Person A: Ah yes, but they're not true Silcon Valley players

leroy_masochist 11y ago
I'm familiar with what an NTS argument entails and I continue to disagree. I think the author's point could be restated as, "if you're going to say that what happened at Theranos discredits Silicon Valley, then let's define what we mean by 'Silicon Valley'". Specifically, the author is pointing out that "Silicon Valley", when used colloquially, might mean "Silicon Valley venture capital firms with a track record" or it might mean "any qualified investor calling themselves an 'angel' or a 'VC' who buys private company stock". The difference between the former and the latter is not purely rhetorical, as in the definition of the NTS fallacy; it is, as I mentioned in my previous comment, measurable and falsifiable. And the author is basically saying that people in the former group should not be stigmatized by the failings of certain people in the latter group.
- CPLX 11y ago
  Tim Draper is a Silicon Valley VC with a track record. He was apparently an accessory to his daughter's best friend ripping off billions of dollars in investor money based entirely on hype and insiderism, descending into a scandal currently under federal investigation. In Silicon Valley. Page Mill Road to be specific. Getting op-eds placed in the NYT isn't going to take the stink off this one. Though I am sympathetic to the instinct to try.
  - Alex3917 11y ago
    > Tim Draper is a Silicon Valley VC with a track record. Him investing in Theranos only at best shows that he thought that it had been appropriately de-risked enough to justify a tiny pre-seed investment, not that it was later de-risked enough to justify the seed, A, B, etc.
- mcguire 11y ago
  So you are saying that Silicon Valley is "the start-up ecosystem built around the 15 or 20 venture capital firms in the tech sector and a similar number in life sciences that account for almost all of the successful companies." That might come as a surprise to most of the people who think they work there.
  - leroy_masochist 11y ago
    Within the specific context of a statement like, "Silicon Valley was wrong about Company X", yes. Within the general context of what "Silicon Valley" means, no. Is that fair?