5 ms·
And? Does it make their argument incorrect? Also, can we now discount all the studies of harm of pesticides, unless they come from the Croplife America?
by cyberax 5mo ago
And? Does it make their argument incorrect?
Also, can we now discount all the studies of harm of pesticides, unless they come from the Croplife America?
- skywhopper 5mo agoIt makes her arguments highly suspect, yes.
- pogue 5mo agoThe principle of charity suggests we should assume good intentions about others and their ideas, and give them the benefit of the doubt before criticising them. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-the-principle-of-charity/ https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-the-principle-of-char...
- cosmicgadget 5mo agoSeems like a great way to get conned. I'll pass.
- arecsu 5mo agoYou can also argue the opposite, that due to her working with a particular interest in proving the organic industry wrong, she is finding factual information about it. As usual, information should be dismissed or confirmed with more information, not with fallacies
- jraph 5mo agoOTOH this stuff has already been refuted and pesticide makers lobbying like this, spreading FUD on organic food, is a well known pattern already. We can't afford properly refuting each occurrence, the effort is highly asymmetrical.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- cyberax 5mo agoRefuted where? Be specific.
- tim-tday 5mo agoFinancial interest in a particular conclusion is a well-known mechanism of producing bullshit science, so yes.
- cyberax 5mo agoSo we should disregard all the research from Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and other environmental organizations?
- DougN7 5mo agoAre they doing what they are doing for a profit motive?
- keeda 5mo agoDoes it have to be a profit motive, or any motive would do?
- TiredOfLife 5mo ago[flagged]
- cosmicgadget 5mo agoNo, her argument makes her argument incorrect. Her bias makes her argument not worth the time.