4 ms·

> No, there is no problem because the people who dismiss the study are the same hypocrites who would've accepted the study if the results had been reversed. Ha

> No, there is no problem because the people who dismiss the study are the same hypocrites who would've accepted the study if the results had been reversed. Have you read the article? I'd presume you'd have, but this comment very much reads like you haven't. > Being that there are numerous studies showing harm, the need for expertise in interpretation goes out of the window. If someone is still claiming it, odds are that they want to gatekeep and empower only themselves, not you. They want you to keep paying them to be the holy priests while you remain their servant. It is trivial to assemble a bevy of misleading studies on any particular issue. Suggesting that the quantity of studies obviates the need for expertise when evaluating studies seems laughable. Now, if you were talking about the quality of studies, maybe I could agree with you. Ironically, in a situation where you already have a lot of studies indicating a result, then a new inconclusive/low-quality study is of even less value.

OutOfHere 2y ago
I don't need to heed the article because actually I pay attention where attention is deserved, that is, to the studies. If you had any, you would've shared them by now, which is to say you don't have any, and therefore your words are void. Note to other readers: These are the kind of people that want to keep polluting your water without even sharing any studies to demonstrate its safety.
- cbsmith 2y ago
  > I don't need to heed the article because actually I pay attention where attention is deserved, that is, to the studies. If you had any, you would've shared them by now, which is to say you don't have any, and therefore your words are void. There's this saying about contempt prior to investigation... You've made assumptions about what is in the article that are not correct. The article specifically talks about the kind of articles you think it is, and also the kind of reactions you are mentioning. It clearly explains the problems with the study and offers solutions to correct them. This is exactly the kind of criticism that we want. Ignoring this stuff undermines your ability to make a persuasive argument. > Note to other readers: These are the kind of people that want to keep polluting your water without even sharing any studies to demonstrate its safety. If you haven't read the article, how do you know what "kind of people" are involved?

OutOfHere 2y ago

I don't need to heed the article because actually I pay attention where attention is deserved, that is, to the studies. If you had any, you would've shared them by now, which is to say you don't have any, and therefore your words are void. Note to other readers: These are the kind of people that want to keep polluting your water without even sharing any studies to demonstrate its safety.

cbsmith 2y ago
> I don't need to heed the article because actually I pay attention where attention is deserved, that is, to the studies. If you had any, you would've shared them by now, which is to say you don't have any, and therefore your words are void. There's this saying about contempt prior to investigation... You've made assumptions about what is in the article that are not correct. The article specifically talks about the kind of articles you think it is, and also the kind of reactions you are mentioning. It clearly explains the problems with the study and offers solutions to correct them. This is exactly the kind of criticism that we want. Ignoring this stuff undermines your ability to make a persuasive argument. > Note to other readers: These are the kind of people that want to keep polluting your water without even sharing any studies to demonstrate its safety. If you haven't read the article, how do you know what "kind of people" are involved?