5 ms·

>the claim of "brain abnormalities" appear to come from a small number of doctors who likely were primed with irrelevant information The study was published by

>the claim of "brain abnormalities" appear to come from a small number of doctors who likely were primed with irrelevant information The study was published by the UPenn Center for Brain Injury and Repair (I’d recommend reading it) by the treating physicians. It’s funny you would opine the treating physicians have irrelevant information. Yet, like many in this thread you tend to gravitate towards doctors/scientist making diagnoses sight unseen who have no patient information. I’d say the real mystery is how anyone on HN could ignore the study from the UPenn Center for Brain Injury and Repair who examined and evaluated the patients completed with objective tests like MRI and hearing. As if that’s not enough you say >it’s not far fetected this priming caused the doctors to see brain abnormalities where none existed I’d like to know how the doctors bias manifested to the MRI and hearing testing. And I’m wondering why your logic doesn’t get applied to the scientists and the neurologist (who is clearly biased) who hasn’t examined the patients and has diagnosed them as suffering from psychosomatic mass hysteria.

bjourne 8y ago
You are clearly arguing by appeal to authority. The staff at The University of Pennsylvania Center for Brain Injury and Repair is not infallible. Sometimes bad science is produced by even renowned institutions. This is what the study says about the MRI scans: "MRI neuroimaging was obtained in all 21 patients. Most patients had conventional imaging findings, which were within normal limits, at most showing a few small nonspecific T2-bright foci in the white matter (n =9, 43%). There were 3 patients with multiple T2-bright white matter foci, which were more than expected for age, 2 mild in degree, and 1 with moderate changes. The pattern of conventional imaging findings in these cases was nonspecific with regard to the exposure/insult experienced, and the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors." Translated to English: Only a few minor brain abnormalities were found. Those could all have been the result of prior, more natural causes. The MRI scans themselves aren't available, presumably because of "security" reasons. Personally, I don't see why the crickets theory would be implausible at all. Listening at their sound for just 20 seconds was enough to give me shivers and ringing ears. I'd easily go insane if I had to hear them every night for several months straight.
- apcragg 8y ago
  It's not arguing by appealing to authority when they are the experts in a field...
  - treis 8y ago
    That's exactly what appealing to authority is. They are an authority precisely because they are experts in the field
    - jerf 8y ago
      Yes, but "appeal to actual authority" is a positive description of an argument, not a fallacy. The fallacy is appeal to irrelevant or incorrect authority. This is like the third time in the past couple of months I've had to make this point. Is there someone out there actually telling people that using what authorities say in an argument is always wrong?
      - jMyles 8y ago
        You're missing the point. Presenting a source for a claim is fine, but the naked fact that the author of the source is an expert in the field is not sufficient. You need to also show that their expertise is properly applied. The person with whom you are arguing is making the point that they may have been misdirected by prompting that turns out to have been questionable, and that they acted on this instead of properly applying their expertise. If you're saying something like, "Well that's just not possible! They're an authority on this topic!" ...then yes, you are committing (arguably the quintessential) fallacy of appealing to authority.
        jerf 8y ago
        It is also a fallacy that every argument must spell out every step. You are allowed to jump over simple things like "doctors qualified to examine these people are qualified to have opinions about them." Is the claim that you fear that they may have been examined by random hobos grabbed off the streets? Who are somehow associated with that group of doctors? By what stretch of the imagination are these not relevant authorities? Demanding to have that spelled out is either demanding to have your intellect insulted, or simply mendacity. I trust those doctors far more than I trust people trying to chop logic on some random programming site.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bjourne 8y ago

You are clearly arguing by appeal to authority. The staff at The University of Pennsylvania Center for Brain Injury and Repair is not infallible. Sometimes bad science is produced by even renowned institutions. This is what the study says about the MRI scans: "MRI neuroimaging was obtained in all 21 patients. Most patients had conventional imaging findings, which were within normal limits, at most showing a few small nonspecific T2-bright foci in the white matter (n =9, 43%). There were 3 patients with multiple T2-bright white matter foci, which were more than expected for age, 2 mild in degree, and 1 with moderate changes. The pattern of conventional imaging findings in these cases was nonspecific with regard to the exposure/insult experienced, and the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors." Translated to English: Only a few minor brain abnormalities were found. Those could all have been the result of prior, more natural causes. The MRI scans themselves aren't available, presumably because of "security" reasons. Personally, I don't see why the crickets theory would be implausible at all. Listening at their sound for just 20 seconds was enough to give me shivers and ringing ears. I'd easily go insane if I had to hear them every night for several months straight.

apcragg 8y ago
It's not arguing by appealing to authority when they are the experts in a field...
- treis 8y ago
  That's exactly what appealing to authority is. They are an authority precisely because they are experts in the field
  - jerf 8y ago
    Yes, but "appeal to actual authority" is a positive description of an argument, not a fallacy. The fallacy is appeal to irrelevant or incorrect authority. This is like the third time in the past couple of months I've had to make this point. Is there someone out there actually telling people that using what authorities say in an argument is always wrong?
    - jMyles 8y ago
      You're missing the point. Presenting a source for a claim is fine, but the naked fact that the author of the source is an expert in the field is not sufficient. You need to also show that their expertise is properly applied. The person with whom you are arguing is making the point that they may have been misdirected by prompting that turns out to have been questionable, and that they acted on this instead of properly applying their expertise. If you're saying something like, "Well that's just not possible! They're an authority on this topic!" ...then yes, you are committing (arguably the quintessential) fallacy of appealing to authority.
      - jerf 8y ago
        It is also a fallacy that every argument must spell out every step. You are allowed to jump over simple things like "doctors qualified to examine these people are qualified to have opinions about them." Is the claim that you fear that they may have been examined by random hobos grabbed off the streets? Who are somehow associated with that group of doctors? By what stretch of the imagination are these not relevant authorities? Demanding to have that spelled out is either demanding to have your intellect insulted, or simply mendacity. I trust those doctors far more than I trust people trying to chop logic on some random programming site.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]