3 ms·

I don’t understand the point you’re making, explain it to me like I’m a complete moron so I don’t misinterpret you.

tptacek 4y ago
There's an actual controversy over whether Monsanto's best known products are actually harmful to people, especially on balance vs. their substitutes. Your response for how Monsanto should handle this situation seems to be that they should dispose of the controversy and just concede your side of it. That's only persuasive to people that already agree with your side of the argument. Do you have a better one?
- harry8 4y ago
  Sure I'll believe there's an "actual controversy" I don't know any better. What conclusion can be drawn from a company ghostwriting studies and pretending they are not the source of them that support propositions that are convenient to them? Is doing such a thing going to "add to the controversy?" Does the increase in controversy help them in any way? "There are other studies so it is unclear if on balance..." When they are caught out doing so, should we update whatever prior we have about the truth of the proposition that is controversial? Does it make you trust what they say more, or less? Are there any similarities at all to the "smoking causes cancer, heart disease, strokes etc" controversies of the past you can see? Like for example tobacco companies hiring Berkeley's best statisticians to cast doubt on all the studies showing tobacco smoking is quite unhealthy. New statistical techniques were developed to do so and they're good ones still in use! Of course smoking is no longer controversial at all anymore, is it? They did get decades more sales out of "the controversy" and it really was one! Once you catch an organization of any kind with a very, very large ulterior motive in influencing "the controversy" doing so dishonestly, where do you think your prior should be before you see solid evidence to update it for claims that such an organization is making?

There's an actual controversy over whether Monsanto's best known products are actually harmful to people, especially on balance vs. their substitutes. Your response for how Monsanto should handle this situation seems to be that they should dispose of the controversy and just concede your side of it. That's only persuasive to people that already agree with your side of the argument. Do you have a better one?

harry8 4y ago
Sure I'll believe there's an "actual controversy" I don't know any better. What conclusion can be drawn from a company ghostwriting studies and pretending they are not the source of them that support propositions that are convenient to them? Is doing such a thing going to "add to the controversy?" Does the increase in controversy help them in any way? "There are other studies so it is unclear if on balance..." When they are caught out doing so, should we update whatever prior we have about the truth of the proposition that is controversial? Does it make you trust what they say more, or less? Are there any similarities at all to the "smoking causes cancer, heart disease, strokes etc" controversies of the past you can see? Like for example tobacco companies hiring Berkeley's best statisticians to cast doubt on all the studies showing tobacco smoking is quite unhealthy. New statistical techniques were developed to do so and they're good ones still in use! Of course smoking is no longer controversial at all anymore, is it? They did get decades more sales out of "the controversy" and it really was one! Once you catch an organization of any kind with a very, very large ulterior motive in influencing "the controversy" doing so dishonestly, where do you think your prior should be before you see solid evidence to update it for claims that such an organization is making?