Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Peer Review and the Scientific Process
Renegade:
^A thought: perhaps we're too easily equating 'corporate researchers' with scientists? And 'corporate sponsored research' with science? ;)
-40hz (February 08, 2015, 09:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
What's wrong with you? Are you one of those anti-vaxxers? :P ;)
40hz:
^Far from it. ;D ;)
Renegade:
^Far from it. ;D ;)
-40hz (February 09, 2015, 01:17 AM)
--- End quote ---
So you believe in corporate research then? ;)
(You can't have it all and have it both ways...)
B-b-b-but...
barney:
(You can't have it all and have it both ways...)
-Renegade (February 09, 2015, 10:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Why not :-\ :P???
40hz:
@Ren - I don't. :P
And there are far more options than the false dilemma/excluded middle fallacy you're introducing.
Because there's more than enough good solid science to support the benefits of vaccination that I don't need to rely on self-serving corporate studies; or the clueless rants of some ex-Playboy Playmate; or the sturm und drang of some fundamentalist preachers; or actor and cable gabfest host Bill Maher's snarky verbal gamesmanship to reach the conclusions I have regarding it.
Many who argue otherwise however...(see 0:45-0:58 in the "If Google Were a Guy" video below):
For the record, this (below) is where I stand on the "controversy." I'd use my own words, but Ms. kirkland cuts to the chase better - and quoting her requires less typing on my part ;):
[They]have built an alternative world of internal legitimacy that mimics all the features of the mainstream research world — the journals, the conferences, the publications, the letters after the names — and some leaders have gained access to policy-making positions. Mixing an environmentally inflected critique of vaccination and Big Pharma with a libertarian individualist account of health has been a resonant formulation for some years now, with support flowing in from both the Left and the Right.
- Anna Kirkland in The Legitimacy of Vaccine Critics: What Is Left after the Autism Hypothesis? published in Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law - October 2011.
--- End quote ---
It's not about taking sides, It's about getting the bottom of the matter as far as you can possibly get in the face of all the chaff whirling around most (mostly faux) scientific "controversy" these days. I also don't see the need to go through life with a siege mentality. I can be concerned about issues without reducing them to a verbal tennis match. At least most times. (Hey! If you want a Mother Theresa - go see Mother Theresa! :P)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version