Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (4504)	2/14/2008 3:37:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Peer review isn't an issue. The issue is the logic. My facts are solid (well you might doubt that my car is silver, but at least the other two are well established public knowledge), but it doesn't really matter whether their solid, the logic in my reductio argument was absurd. No need to bother to peer review the claimed facts, because it doesn't matter if they are true or not. Either way you haven't established the conclusion as true. The logic I was complaining about in the article about the drug industry wasn't truly absurd, at least not in such an obvious way, but it was faulty. Plugging solid facts in as premises in a faulty argument, doesn't give you any reason to accept the conclusion. OTOH if you can show that someone is using faulty logic, that doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong, it just means they haven't shown it to be correct. Something doesn't become false just because the person arguing for it does a bad job.