4 ms·

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 righ

by 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.

by rm999 8y ago

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.