4 ms·

>Wow, did you read the article or just the first sentence and only came here to post your pseudo scientific thoughts? Why are you so vehemently disagreeing wit

>Wow, did you read the article or just the first sentence and only came here to post your pseudo scientific thoughts? Why are you so vehemently disagreeing with someone else's anecdotal experience? >I'm no neuroscientist but I just had a child and read up on brain development His opinion is wrong because you read something and just had a baby?

JadeNB 10y ago
> Why are you so vehemently disagreeing with someone else's anecdotal experience? > His opinion is wrong because you read something and just had a baby? To be clear, what I am about to say is a response only to your post, not to the debate about the accuracy of the article. Although it was supported by opinion and anecdotal experience, the main thrust of bsder's post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12670315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12670315) seemed to be that the article, not his or her opinion, was a matter of assumption: > I hate these kinds of assumptions ... and that his or her objection was a matter of fact: > The biggest difference between adults and children is not neuroplasticity--the biggest difference is TIME.
coldtea 10y ago
>Why are you so vehemently disagreeing with someone else's anecdotal experience? Because it was communicated while dissing on the article and the research results, as if personal experience trumps everything and those people that say otherwise are just lazy. >His opinion is wrong because you read something and just had a baby? No, but your comment is wrong because you put words in the other guy's month that he didn't say to manipulate people's perception of his argument. He doesn't say the other guy is wrong "because he read something and just had a baby". That is, he doesn't say: "You're wrong because I read War And Peace and also just had a baby, so I'm right". He says that the other guy is wrong because his anecdotal opinion doesn't agree with what brain development books say. So, (a) he only mentions the fact that he had a baby as an aside, to just convey us his motivation behind "reading up on brain development", and (b) he is not just saying he "read something", he's saying he read books about brain development. You can dispute whether he did or not, or come up with other books on brain development that say otherwise, but your framing of what he said is in bad faith.
- wodencafe 10y ago
  >You can dispute whether he did or not, or come up with other books on brain development that say otherwise, but your framing of what he said is in bad faith. I quoted exactly what was said, which mentions what kind of book was read... so I don't find the "framing" in "bad faith" as you put it, at all. Don't you have anything to say about the substance of the article, or original post?
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I quoted exactly what was said, which mentions what kind of book was read... so I don't find the "framing" in "bad faith" as you put it, at all. Having quoted it didn't stop you from paraphrasing it against its obvious meaning. >Don't you have anything to say about the substance of the article, or original post? A bizarre complaint, coming as it is from someone who only meta-commented on the parent's post.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
fma 10y ago
This is why anti-vax is spreading. There's concrete science, and this article accurately reports it. Yet people disagree with decades of research because of some anecdotal experience. I can't believe I need to defend science vs opinion on HN... Edit: I'm not against opinions and critical analysis of research. But you need to back it up with other research, not one off anecdotal evidence.

JadeNB 10y ago

> Why are you so vehemently disagreeing with someone else's anecdotal experience? > His opinion is wrong because you read something and just had a baby? To be clear, what I am about to say is a response only to your post, not to the debate about the accuracy of the article. Although it was supported by opinion and anecdotal experience, the main thrust of bsder's post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12670315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12670315) seemed to be that the article, not his or her opinion, was a matter of assumption: > I hate these kinds of assumptions ... and that his or her objection was a matter of fact: > The biggest difference between adults and children is not neuroplasticity--the biggest difference is TIME.

coldtea 10y ago

>Why are you so vehemently disagreeing with someone else's anecdotal experience? Because it was communicated while dissing on the article and the research results, as if personal experience trumps everything and those people that say otherwise are just lazy. >His opinion is wrong because you read something and just had a baby? No, but your comment is wrong because you put words in the other guy's month that he didn't say to manipulate people's perception of his argument. He doesn't say the other guy is wrong "because he read something and just had a baby". That is, he doesn't say: "You're wrong because I read War And Peace and also just had a baby, so I'm right". He says that the other guy is wrong because his anecdotal opinion doesn't agree with what brain development books say. So, (a) he only mentions the fact that he had a baby as an aside, to just convey us his motivation behind "reading up on brain development", and (b) he is not just saying he "read something", he's saying he read books about brain development. You can dispute whether he did or not, or come up with other books on brain development that say otherwise, but your framing of what he said is in bad faith.

wodencafe 10y ago
>You can dispute whether he did or not, or come up with other books on brain development that say otherwise, but your framing of what he said is in bad faith. I quoted exactly what was said, which mentions what kind of book was read... so I don't find the "framing" in "bad faith" as you put it, at all. Don't you have anything to say about the substance of the article, or original post?
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I quoted exactly what was said, which mentions what kind of book was read... so I don't find the "framing" in "bad faith" as you put it, at all. Having quoted it didn't stop you from paraphrasing it against its obvious meaning. >Don't you have anything to say about the substance of the article, or original post? A bizarre complaint, coming as it is from someone who only meta-commented on the parent's post.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

fma 10y ago

This is why anti-vax is spreading. There's concrete science, and this article accurately reports it. Yet people disagree with decades of research because of some anecdotal experience. I can't believe I need to defend science vs opinion on HN... Edit: I'm not against opinions and critical analysis of research. But you need to back it up with other research, not one off anecdotal evidence.