5 ms·

"If a nasal spray can improve memory, perhaps we're on our way to giving some folks a whiff of common sense, such as accepting the realities of evolution," I t

"If a nasal spray can improve memory, perhaps we're on our way to giving some folks a whiff of common sense, such as accepting the realities of evolution," I think the newsworthiness of the article may be overshadowed by this neutron-bomb of a statement. Maybe it was taken out of context? :-)

tsestrich 17y ago
Seriously. I thought the whole article was interesting, but then I read that and I was like "Are you kidding me?". I love the theory of evolution and all... but why toss it in their randomly... it made no sense whatsoever. It definitely discredited the article and the scientists involved. "Maybe it will help us achieve our end goal and people will realize that it's stupid to vote Democrat!" would have been comparable...
- edmccaffrey 17y ago
  > It definitely discredited the article and the scientists involved. How can a statement by the editor of a journal who didn't have anything to do with the study beyond publishing it discredit the scientists that did the research? Guilt by association is well established as a logical fallacy.
  - dejb 17y ago
    > Guilt by association is well established as a logical fallacy. Yes but there is a significant portion of the population that doesn't understand this. They are indeed likely to give the both the article and the underlying research much less credit. > Guilt by association is well established as a logical fallacy. It depends on your context. The underlying proposition is unaffected by its supporters but your 'best guess' view of it based on limited information needs to take this into consideration. Apart from unreliable sources I'm sure there are some people who pass on information which is anti-correlated with the truth. A biblical creationist is likely to be strongly attracted to exactly research that an evolutionist would dismiss. Both of these two would be right in pre-judging any research put forward by the other as have a reduced probability of being valid according to their views of reality.
johnnybgoode 17y ago
Yeah, when I saw that I had to check again to see if I was reading The Onion or something.

tsestrich 17y ago

Seriously. I thought the whole article was interesting, but then I read that and I was like "Are you kidding me?". I love the theory of evolution and all... but why toss it in their randomly... it made no sense whatsoever. It definitely discredited the article and the scientists involved. "Maybe it will help us achieve our end goal and people will realize that it's stupid to vote Democrat!" would have been comparable...

edmccaffrey 17y ago
> It definitely discredited the article and the scientists involved. How can a statement by the editor of a journal who didn't have anything to do with the study beyond publishing it discredit the scientists that did the research? Guilt by association is well established as a logical fallacy.
- dejb 17y ago
  > Guilt by association is well established as a logical fallacy. Yes but there is a significant portion of the population that doesn't understand this. They are indeed likely to give the both the article and the underlying research much less credit. > Guilt by association is well established as a logical fallacy. It depends on your context. The underlying proposition is unaffected by its supporters but your 'best guess' view of it based on limited information needs to take this into consideration. Apart from unreliable sources I'm sure there are some people who pass on information which is anti-correlated with the truth. A biblical creationist is likely to be strongly attracted to exactly research that an evolutionist would dismiss. Both of these two would be right in pre-judging any research put forward by the other as have a reduced probability of being valid according to their views of reality.

johnnybgoode 17y ago

Yeah, when I saw that I had to check again to see if I was reading The Onion or something.