4 ms·

For anyone who hasn't read the article, the parent is very misleading. The article presents at least half a dozen studies, interviews at least 20 people, and th

For anyone who hasn't read the article, the parent is very misleading. The article presents at least half a dozen studies, interviews at least 20 people, and their list of credentials is exceptional.[0] In this case at least, it's not the Times' research that is 'low quality'. [0] I copied and pasted the credentialed people quoted in the article below; I only made it 80% of the way through and then realized it had become absurd: Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research in Washington Dr. Eric Donnenfeld, who was Mr. Puglisi’s surgeon and a past president of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery global medical director for a large laser eye-surgery provider Researchers at Ohio State University one surgeon’s 2017 analysis of more recent data Morris Waxler, a retired senior F.D.A. official ... [and] former chief of the diagnostic and surgical devices branch in the F.D.A.’s division of ophthalmic devices Dr. Cynthia MacKay [ophthalmologist] Dr. John Vukich, chair of the American Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery’s refractive clinical surgery committee Dr. Malvina Eydelman, director of the division of ophthalmic and ear, nose and throat devices at the F.D.A.’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health Dr. Anat Galor, an associate professor of clinical ophthalmology at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami. Dr. Pedram Hamrah, director of research at the New England Eye Center at Tufts Medical Center

rm999 8y ago
I'd say we're both right: the article is based around a flawed study that hilariously contradicts the title and is full of circumstantial evidence. You are right that they cite plenty of other studies and quote qualified people. But I'd claim that the faults I cite instantly disqualify it from being a quality objective piece, and that there are likely better places to get a well argued viewpoint.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > I'd say we're both right I'd say the parent comment is factually wrong: > the article is based around a flawed study The article is based around at least 6 studies and a long list of interviews with experts. And the article's subtitle says, studies show (note the plural). So it's false to say the article is based on one study. > a flawed study that hilariously contradicts the title The title is, Lasik's Risks Are Coming Into Sharper Focus. Which study contradicts those words? Certainly not the one discussed in the GGP, which supports the claim that there is growing information about the amount of risk from Lasik. Again, the line quoted above is false. > circumstantial evidence I'm not sure what the parent refers to with that term, but as I pointed out, there is a large amount of evidence and experts analysis in the article. Circumstantial evidence is not a bad thing; it's evidence and is admissible in court, for example (AFAIK). It's just generally not considered sufficient by itself; in this article, it certainly has plenty of company. > disqualify it from being a quality objective piece They quote people and research on all sides of the issue, extensively. > hilariously ... instantly For me, hyperbole disqualifies comments from being taken seriously. It conveys a desire to rant and be dramatic, not a desire to reason about the facts. In fact, the former is often used as a substitute when the latter is lacking.

rm999 8y ago

I'd say we're both right: the article is based around a flawed study that hilariously contradicts the title and is full of circumstantial evidence. You are right that they cite plenty of other studies and quote qualified people. But I'd claim that the faults I cite instantly disqualify it from being a quality objective piece, and that there are likely better places to get a well argued viewpoint.

forapurpose 8y ago
> I'd say we're both right I'd say the parent comment is factually wrong: > the article is based around a flawed study The article is based around at least 6 studies and a long list of interviews with experts. And the article's subtitle says, studies show (note the plural). So it's false to say the article is based on one study. > a flawed study that hilariously contradicts the title The title is, Lasik's Risks Are Coming Into Sharper Focus. Which study contradicts those words? Certainly not the one discussed in the GGP, which supports the claim that there is growing information about the amount of risk from Lasik. Again, the line quoted above is false. > circumstantial evidence I'm not sure what the parent refers to with that term, but as I pointed out, there is a large amount of evidence and experts analysis in the article. Circumstantial evidence is not a bad thing; it's evidence and is admissible in court, for example (AFAIK). It's just generally not considered sufficient by itself; in this article, it certainly has plenty of company. > disqualify it from being a quality objective piece They quote people and research on all sides of the issue, extensively. > hilariously ... instantly For me, hyperbole disqualifies comments from being taken seriously. It conveys a desire to rant and be dramatic, not a desire to reason about the facts. In fact, the former is often used as a substitute when the latter is lacking.