3 ms·
Did you even read the article? What you just said is exactly the initial complaint the author is making about the misapplication of the precautionary principle.
by geuis 16y ago
Did you even read the article? What you just said is exactly the initial complaint the author is making about the misapplication of the precautionary principle.
"I have no idea if <pigs can fly>. But if I have a model of <flight in biological animals> and <pigs> happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they cannot <fly>.
<Birds> are proven to <be biological animals capable of flight>. A <pig> is not a <bird>. That is not proof that <pigs> cannot <be biological animals capable of flight>."
Does this make absolutely any sense to you?
- karzeem 16y agoI've only had one cup of tea today, so maybe I wrote the opposite of what I think I wrote, but it might also be that your pseudoscientist detector is catching false positives today. I'm not asserting that cell phones cause cancer, and I'm not asserting that the precautionary principle is wise to apply here. The author writes that the model of carcinogenesis he's selected predicts that cell phones will not cause cancer. He asserts that this is proof that cell phones cannot cause cancer. I'm taking issue with his confidence in making that assertion.
- gloob 16y agoAnd now for something marginally different: "I have no idea if <bats can fly>. But if I have a model of <flight in biological animals> and <bats> happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they cannot <fly>." Notice how if you change what someone is saying, you can make them look silly? And yes, if you are looking at it from the perspective of deductive reasoning, the statement does make perfect sense.