3 ms·

I can't quite put my finger on when - but sometime about 5 years ago we stopped arguing the merits and started allowing guilt by association as a valid argument

I can't quite put my finger on when - but sometime about 5 years ago we stopped arguing the merits and started allowing guilt by association as a valid argument.

woodruffw 9y ago
There's no "guilt" here -- I'm just pointing out that accepting the premise (that organizations like these are funding and publishing honest research) will lead you to conclude what they want, not necessarily what our actual best science tells us. The ills propagated by companies like Monsanto and DuPont are well documented and, in light of them, it's perfectly reasonable to question the motives of their lobbying groups.
- slededit 9y ago
  Its the very definition of an Ad Hominem fallacy: "When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively." https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla... At no point did you address any of the actual claims in the article.
  - woodruffw 9y ago
    You can read what I think about ad hominems here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490 Here's the short and sweet version: it's not fallacious to consider the character of actors if past experience indicates profound dishonesty/irrationality on their part. I think Big Ag's lobbying arm satisfies that condition. Unless you're actually claiming that this site represents our best science (and not a bunch of think-tank-funded, cherry-picked studies), you're missing the point: all of the links above are good evidence that we should take this source with a grain of salt. They're not an outright dismissal; only more information.
    - slededit 9y ago
      Except you haven't linked any evidence that the specific authors have conducted bad science in the past, merely that they have accepted money from people you don't like.
      - woodruffw 9y ago
        You're right: I've committed the grave sin of counting on it being common knowledge that (for example) Monsanto ghostwrites papers claiming that Roundup is safe[1], and that groups like the AEI have tried to bribe scientists into critiquing global authorities on climate change[2]. Give me a break. HN is an educated audience, and just about everybody in North America who reads the news knows at least something about Monsanto/DuPont/Exxon/whoever manipulating the scientific process. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#...
        cholantesh 9y ago
        Nah, you commited the grave sin of not considering that any of this isn't theatre for an ambulance chasing legal firm. That's actually covered in the article, and since you've been following this, you should be able to see the emails are pretty tepid stuff if read soberly.
- cholantesh 9y ago
  Usually they're perceived ills that are misrepresented, so no, not really.

I can't quite put my finger on when - but sometime about 5 years ago we stopped arguing the merits and started allowing guilt by association as a valid argument.

woodruffw 9y ago

There's no "guilt" here -- I'm just pointing out that accepting the premise (that organizations like these are funding and publishing honest research) will lead you to conclude what they want, not necessarily what our actual best science tells us. The ills propagated by companies like Monsanto and DuPont are well documented and, in light of them, it's perfectly reasonable to question the motives of their lobbying groups.

slededit 9y ago
Its the very definition of an Ad Hominem fallacy: "When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively." https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla... At no point did you address any of the actual claims in the article.
- woodruffw 9y ago
  You can read what I think about ad hominems here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490 Here's the short and sweet version: it's not fallacious to consider the character of actors if past experience indicates profound dishonesty/irrationality on their part. I think Big Ag's lobbying arm satisfies that condition. Unless you're actually claiming that this site represents our best science (and not a bunch of think-tank-funded, cherry-picked studies), you're missing the point: all of the links above are good evidence that we should take this source with a grain of salt. They're not an outright dismissal; only more information.
  - slededit 9y ago
    Except you haven't linked any evidence that the specific authors have conducted bad science in the past, merely that they have accepted money from people you don't like.
    - woodruffw 9y ago
      You're right: I've committed the grave sin of counting on it being common knowledge that (for example) Monsanto ghostwrites papers claiming that Roundup is safe[1], and that groups like the AEI have tried to bribe scientists into critiquing global authorities on climate change[2]. Give me a break. HN is an educated audience, and just about everybody in North America who reads the news knows at least something about Monsanto/DuPont/Exxon/whoever manipulating the scientific process. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#...
      - cholantesh 9y ago
        Nah, you commited the grave sin of not considering that any of this isn't theatre for an ambulance chasing legal firm. That's actually covered in the article, and since you've been following this, you should be able to see the emails are pretty tepid stuff if read soberly.
cholantesh 9y ago
Usually they're perceived ills that are misrepresented, so no, not really.