5 ms·

The scientists' appeal, including a list of signatories and their affiliations, isn't hard to find by following links. https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-s

The scientists' appeal, including a list of signatories and their affiliations, isn't hard to find by following links. https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal Likewise for a list of relevant papers: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl3Eur3/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl... Is Harvard Medical School an institution you recognize and trust? Columbia? Monash? McGill? Can we dispense with the tired ad hominems and talk about science? A self-proclaimed guess from a self-proclaimed non-expert seems ill placed in a credentialist diatribe.

nabla9 7y ago
Harvard Medical School is good institution but people on the list are not experts in the subject. Autism researchers etc.
- notacoward 7y ago
  Look at those goalposts go! Three minutes and already we have a new standard. Too bad it's still about the people and not the facts.
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    > but very little in terms of currently being researchers in the field
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    Goalposts notwithstanding you have to admit the list is kind of hit or miss. Whenever their job isn't listed they're either retired or were never in a related field. For example you listed Harvard, Columbia, Monash, and McGill above. Half the people from those institutions are either unqualified, retired, or both. Plus there's places like "ElectroSensitivity UK" which aren't scientific institutions. PS - I fully admit that there are subject experts from trusted institutions included too. But you're being far too defensive for quite legitimate questions/criticisms.
    - notacoward 7y ago
      > the list is kind of hit or miss. It seemed that way to me as well, but the real point is that it's irrelevant how well or poorly we judge those people. What matters is the facts they or others present. > you're being far too defensive Defensive of what? I haven't even expressed a position yet, other than "logical fallacies are bad" and I'm pretty willing to stand by that one. Are you here to argue the converse? To the extent that people or motivations matter at all, why condemn me but not the one who created the digression?
      - heyoni 7y ago
        Super defensive.
      - toofy 7y ago
        > ...the real point is that it's irrelevant how well or poorly we judge those people. What matters is the facts they or others present. This matters if your expertise are in the subject to which the facts belong, otherwise it means little, particularly in a subject which requires an incredible amount of knowledge of an an incredible array of subjects. I can look a bunch of absolute facts regarding 5g signals and make an assumption, however, because my expertise lie far outside the realm of 5g, an expert can easily come along afterwards and show me why these facts–while accurate–mean nothing to the subject at hand and why a completely different set of facts are what one should be looking at. Expertise absolutely matters. And this is coming from a person who is confident that a greater than zero amount of companies would happily pay people to add noise to a topic in order to poison us for a fraction of a percentage boost in their quarterly growth. Expertise matters on complex subjects and attempting to pretend as if all ideas are equal no matter who they come from or who receives them is a recipe for disaster. The collective We really need to get back to a place where we freely and happily say “It’s really outside my realm of expertise. You should track down an expert.” and way more often daily and regularly “I don’t know.”
        notacoward 7y ago
        > as if all ideas This isn't about ideas. It's about data. The quality of data is independent of where it came from, so it actually is equal in that sense. > You should track down an expert. Yes, we should refer people to experts more often. Why? Because they have data, not because they have titles or affiliations. Information is what makes them experts, and information can be shared.
  - JangoSteve 7y ago
    Wait, did the goalposts actually move at all? The original post said: > There are a lot of people with degrees FROM credible institutions, but very little in terms of currently being researchers in the field AT credible institutions. You responded literally saying that the institutions are credible: > Is Harvard Medical School an institution you recognize and trust? Columbia? Monash? McGill? That wasn't the original objection; they even said in their objection that the institutions are credible. I don't understand how the goalposts moved.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  That’s one hell of an ad hominem you’re getting away with.
  - willis936 7y ago
    Is it though? Is it ad hominem to identify and separate people who know something about a thing from those who don’t?
    - notacoward 7y ago
      You raise a good point. When an appeal to authority has already made credentials etc. the issue, challenging that appeal becomes valid. The problem is that OP wasn't just an appeal to authority. It did not open that door. It did make arguments other than identity, and linked to fuller expositions of those arguments. Thus, addressing only identity and ignoring any arguments in either direction remains ad hominem.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    Is criticizing an expert's qualifications an ad hominem? Particularly when they're using their expertise to argue for an idea as here. Seems like a double standard. They can use their expertise/reputation to endorse an idea but using that same expertise/reputation to qualify that endorsement is an "ad hominem." To me discussing their expertise is core to their position, since their whole position is: "I'm an expert, I sign a letter based on my expertise for a specific course of action." If they aren't an expert it cuts right to the core of their position.
  - nabla9 7y ago
    It's not ad hominem to separate between experts and non-experts.
  - greenshackle2 7y ago
    Ad hominem is a fair counter-argument to appeal to authority.
- rrss 7y ago
  The autism researcher from Harvard has studied the plausibility of a link between autism and radiofrequency radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24095003/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24095003/.
amdavidson 7y ago
When the list of people also includes folks who claim to "customize clinical trials to support marketing claims"[0] it is hard to take even experts with solid credentials seriously. 0: http://energymedicineri.com/ http://energymedicineri.com/
anilakar 7y ago
Five out of five signers from my country are well-known EHS proponents, and at least three have financial ties to the illness. Having a Ph.D. degree from a well-known university does little to prevent later involvement in quackery.
lightedman 7y ago
"Is Harvard Medical School an institution you recognize and trust?" After their primary university admissions scandal? Absolutely not, not that I ever trusted them in the first place (Memphis has a far better medical program.)
murgindrag 7y ago
... I found them, and that's exactly what raised flags. If a faculty at HMS signed on, that'd be okay. If a ransom person with a degree from HMS does, that doesn't carry the same weight. I was pretty clear about "at" versus "from." Science isn't a democracy.

nabla9 7y ago

Harvard Medical School is good institution but people on the list are not experts in the subject. Autism researchers etc.

notacoward 7y ago
Look at those goalposts go! Three minutes and already we have a new standard. Too bad it's still about the people and not the facts.
- balfirevic 7y ago
  > but very little in terms of currently being researchers in the field
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Goalposts notwithstanding you have to admit the list is kind of hit or miss. Whenever their job isn't listed they're either retired or were never in a related field. For example you listed Harvard, Columbia, Monash, and McGill above. Half the people from those institutions are either unqualified, retired, or both. Plus there's places like "ElectroSensitivity UK" which aren't scientific institutions. PS - I fully admit that there are subject experts from trusted institutions included too. But you're being far too defensive for quite legitimate questions/criticisms.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > the list is kind of hit or miss. It seemed that way to me as well, but the real point is that it's irrelevant how well or poorly we judge those people. What matters is the facts they or others present. > you're being far too defensive Defensive of what? I haven't even expressed a position yet, other than "logical fallacies are bad" and I'm pretty willing to stand by that one. Are you here to argue the converse? To the extent that people or motivations matter at all, why condemn me but not the one who created the digression?
    - heyoni 7y ago
      Super defensive.
    - toofy 7y ago
      > ...the real point is that it's irrelevant how well or poorly we judge those people. What matters is the facts they or others present. This matters if your expertise are in the subject to which the facts belong, otherwise it means little, particularly in a subject which requires an incredible amount of knowledge of an an incredible array of subjects. I can look a bunch of absolute facts regarding 5g signals and make an assumption, however, because my expertise lie far outside the realm of 5g, an expert can easily come along afterwards and show me why these facts–while accurate–mean nothing to the subject at hand and why a completely different set of facts are what one should be looking at. Expertise absolutely matters. And this is coming from a person who is confident that a greater than zero amount of companies would happily pay people to add noise to a topic in order to poison us for a fraction of a percentage boost in their quarterly growth. Expertise matters on complex subjects and attempting to pretend as if all ideas are equal no matter who they come from or who receives them is a recipe for disaster. The collective We really need to get back to a place where we freely and happily say “It’s really outside my realm of expertise. You should track down an expert.” and way more often daily and regularly “I don’t know.”
      - notacoward 7y ago
        > as if all ideas This isn't about ideas. It's about data. The quality of data is independent of where it came from, so it actually is equal in that sense. > You should track down an expert. Yes, we should refer people to experts more often. Why? Because they have data, not because they have titles or affiliations. Information is what makes them experts, and information can be shared.
- JangoSteve 7y ago
  Wait, did the goalposts actually move at all? The original post said: > There are a lot of people with degrees FROM credible institutions, but very little in terms of currently being researchers in the field AT credible institutions. You responded literally saying that the institutions are credible: > Is Harvard Medical School an institution you recognize and trust? Columbia? Monash? McGill? That wasn't the original objection; they even said in their objection that the institutions are credible. I don't understand how the goalposts moved.
ilikehurdles 7y ago
That’s one hell of an ad hominem you’re getting away with.
- willis936 7y ago
  Is it though? Is it ad hominem to identify and separate people who know something about a thing from those who don’t?
  - notacoward 7y ago
    You raise a good point. When an appeal to authority has already made credentials etc. the issue, challenging that appeal becomes valid. The problem is that OP wasn't just an appeal to authority. It did not open that door. It did make arguments other than identity, and linked to fuller expositions of those arguments. Thus, addressing only identity and ignoring any arguments in either direction remains ad hominem.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Is criticizing an expert's qualifications an ad hominem? Particularly when they're using their expertise to argue for an idea as here. Seems like a double standard. They can use their expertise/reputation to endorse an idea but using that same expertise/reputation to qualify that endorsement is an "ad hominem." To me discussing their expertise is core to their position, since their whole position is: "I'm an expert, I sign a letter based on my expertise for a specific course of action." If they aren't an expert it cuts right to the core of their position.
- nabla9 7y ago
  It's not ad hominem to separate between experts and non-experts.
- greenshackle2 7y ago
  Ad hominem is a fair counter-argument to appeal to authority.
rrss 7y ago
The autism researcher from Harvard has studied the plausibility of a link between autism and radiofrequency radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24095003/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24095003/.

amdavidson 7y ago

When the list of people also includes folks who claim to "customize clinical trials to support marketing claims"[0] it is hard to take even experts with solid credentials seriously. 0: http://energymedicineri.com/ http://energymedicineri.com/

anilakar 7y ago

Five out of five signers from my country are well-known EHS proponents, and at least three have financial ties to the illness. Having a Ph.D. degree from a well-known university does little to prevent later involvement in quackery.

lightedman 7y ago

"Is Harvard Medical School an institution you recognize and trust?" After their primary university admissions scandal? Absolutely not, not that I ever trusted them in the first place (Memphis has a far better medical program.)

murgindrag 7y ago

... I found them, and that's exactly what raised flags. If a faculty at HMS signed on, that'd be okay. If a ransom person with a degree from HMS does, that doesn't carry the same weight. I was pretty clear about "at" versus "from." Science isn't a democracy.