3 ms·
>What exactly is the problem in there? It's not that someone who is "for" something can't be objective, it's just that there is a strong likelihood that they ~
by firebat45 3y ago
>What exactly is the problem in there?
It's not that someone who is "for" something can't be objective, it's just that there is a strong likelihood that they ~aren't~ being objective. It doesn't mean an advocate doesn't have valuable perspectives, it just means that you should perhaps take them with a grain of salt.
- magicalist 3y agoEveryone is "for" something, hence the ridiculous example of > Should epidemiologists be careful to never advocate for policies that improve survival outcomes so they maintain the profile of an objective scientist? So again I'll ask: specifically what is the "something" listed on that page[1] that would lead you to believe this person is better considered an advocate and not an "objective scientist"? [1] https://hrdag.org/people/kristian-lum-phd/ https://hrdag.org/people/kristian-lum-phd/
- AlbertCory 3y ago[flagged]