VincentYu comments on What topics are appropriate for LessWrong? - Less Wrong

8 Post author: tog 12 January 2015 06:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (107)

CC Licenced

Comments (107)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: VincentYu 13 January 2015 10:44:55AM 11 points [-]

Regardless of the conflicts between your beliefs and that of others, it is dishonest to misrepresent the writings of other people to bolster your arguments. Do not manipulate quotes from a report to make it say what you want it to say, even if you believe that the original report is incorrect.

Comment author: NatPhilosopher comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: Jiro 14 January 2015 09:57:21PM 2 points [-]

I quoted it accurately

Quoting something accurately means more than just that the words you typed appeared in the source in the right order. You selectively quoted it in a way that made it seem to support a claim that it wasn't really supporting.

Comment author: NatPhilosopher 15 January 2015 02:27:14PM 3 points [-]

Please say what claim I made it support it wasn't really supporting or retract your comment and any negative points you may have given me.

I'm quite curious to see what claim you think I made it support.

Comment author: NatPhilosopher 15 January 2015 12:53:30AM 2 points [-]

It was 100% supporting the claim they didn't know the first thing about the toxicity of injected aluminum in neo-nates. What claim do you think I made it seem they were supporting? Here's how I summarized the quote.

"Doctors had been injecting aluminum adjuvants into children for 70 years, committees of doctors and government officials had decided numerous times to inject more aluminum into younger children, but as late as 2002 nobody had empirical data on toxicities of injected aluminum [1]."

I would say my quote was 100% accurate, not out of context, and I don't have a clue what claim you think I made it seem to support that it wasn't supporting.

Comment author: Jiro 15 January 2015 03:40:03PM 1 point [-]

It was 100% supporting the claim they didn't know the first thing about the toxicity of injected aluminum in neo-nates.

No it wasn't. It only sounded like that because you quoted it out of context. What it said is that they had "scant data". Scant data is not no data, and the rest of the quote makes it clear that they do have some data and that data says that it is safe.

Comment author: NatPhilosopher 15 January 2015 03:48:41PM * 0 points [-]

They didn't have any data on the toxicities of injected aluminum. They had none. They had never injected an animal and collected any. The only data they had was on oral administration. My clarification is 100% accurate, of what the article conveys if you put the quote in context.

You seem to think the fact that they minimize the extent of their incompetence or corruption by using the euphimism "scant" for "none" is more important than the facts (1) that they had been injecting aluminum into tiny kids for 70 years before checking the toxicity, and (2) since then all of the published peer reviewed data shows its doing great damage, and (3) all of the safety review boards and safety surveys are simply and blithely ignoring the scientific literature on the subject, not bothering to cite it or to rebut it or to offer alternative studies on the issue.

VincentYu comments on What topics are appropriate for LessWrong? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (107)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (107)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login