4 ms·

Actually if you had followed the link, there are over 165 other studies asserting issues with mercury in vaccines. If you go to sciencedaily you can find plent

by 13years 12y ago

Actually if you had followed the link, there are over 165 other studies asserting issues with mercury in vaccines. If you go to sciencedaily you can find plenty of studies that raise many questions about the nature of climate change. An intellectual debate requires one to not simply dismiss the other side outright. If your goal is to piss people off and to have your base cheer on, then by all means go ahead. If you want someone to listen to you and your goal is to educate, then you will not get very far with your approach.

maxerickson 12y ago
You linked a crap paper published in some open access journal. It was written by anti-vaxers with little or no research credentials. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antivaccination-cults-idea-constitutes-peer-reviewed/ http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antiv... In addition to impugning the credibility of the authors (which maybe we can wave our hands in the air and say isn't fair), that blag says silly things like this: For example, for the Verstraeten study, the Geiers reference an article that is more of a summary, and complain that it shows no data. In fact, the real Verstraeten study, published in Pediatrics, included all of the data. The Geiers absolutely cherry-picked a short summary of the Verstraeten study rather than examining the fully published article.
- 13years 12y ago
  Then great, this is the proper next step, I wasn't positioning it as a document of truth, but an example of what 'appears' to be credible. Invite discussion. I wouldn't reply that "you cited a crap paper". How about "that's interesting; however, I see there may be concerns with its validity as pointed out by..." It takes time to investigate everything, and one shouldn't just stop when they find the answer they like. You need to always dig deeper for the rebuttals of both sides of an argument.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    "Concerns with validity" gives it too much credit. It's crap. It's dismissible.
    - 13years 12y ago
      It is all a matter of whether you want to personally feel superior like you are crushing an argument to onlookers or do you want to make a difference in the world by engaging in a conversation in which people will more likely be receptive to learn.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        Someone who brings that paper to a discussion isn't trying to engage, they're flogging a point of view.
  - Ygg2 12y ago
    Dude. Cherry picking data renders any discussion of validity meaningless. It is crime against science. It's means your study is worth less than paper it is written on and that your reputation is essentially right next to earth's molten core.
    - 13years 12y ago
      Countless studies are flawed. There is even the study that suggests as many as 50% of all studies are wrong, including those that are well designed. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong.html#.VMuKiYfD-mE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-p... Its quite easy to recognize, just see who funded the study and you see a trend of results supporting the funder. Almost nobody takes the time to investigate a study. You are assuming the person knows the study is flawed to begin with. How do you know the critique of a study is accurate? The critique deserves as much scrutiny as the original until it can be verified. Otherwise it would be cherry picking data to simply stop when we find an answer that fits our beliefs without doing the same investigation of its statements and sources.

by 13years 12y ago

maxerickson 12y ago

You linked a crap paper published in some open access journal. It was written by anti-vaxers with little or no research credentials. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antivaccination-cults-idea-constitutes-peer-reviewed/ http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antiv... In addition to impugning the credibility of the authors (which maybe we can wave our hands in the air and say isn't fair), that blag says silly things like this: For example, for the Verstraeten study, the Geiers reference an article that is more of a summary, and complain that it shows no data. In fact, the real Verstraeten study, published in Pediatrics, included all of the data. The Geiers absolutely cherry-picked a short summary of the Verstraeten study rather than examining the fully published article.

13years 12y ago
Then great, this is the proper next step, I wasn't positioning it as a document of truth, but an example of what 'appears' to be credible. Invite discussion. I wouldn't reply that "you cited a crap paper". How about "that's interesting; however, I see there may be concerns with its validity as pointed out by..." It takes time to investigate everything, and one shouldn't just stop when they find the answer they like. You need to always dig deeper for the rebuttals of both sides of an argument.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  "Concerns with validity" gives it too much credit. It's crap. It's dismissible.
  - 13years 12y ago
    It is all a matter of whether you want to personally feel superior like you are crushing an argument to onlookers or do you want to make a difference in the world by engaging in a conversation in which people will more likely be receptive to learn.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      Someone who brings that paper to a discussion isn't trying to engage, they're flogging a point of view.
- Ygg2 12y ago
  Dude. Cherry picking data renders any discussion of validity meaningless. It is crime against science. It's means your study is worth less than paper it is written on and that your reputation is essentially right next to earth's molten core.
  - 13years 12y ago
    Countless studies are flawed. There is even the study that suggests as many as 50% of all studies are wrong, including those that are well designed. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong.html#.VMuKiYfD-mE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-p... Its quite easy to recognize, just see who funded the study and you see a trend of results supporting the funder. Almost nobody takes the time to investigate a study. You are assuming the person knows the study is flawed to begin with. How do you know the critique of a study is accurate? The critique deserves as much scrutiny as the original until it can be verified. Otherwise it would be cherry picking data to simply stop when we find an answer that fits our beliefs without doing the same investigation of its statements and sources.