07-02-2009, 05:51 AM
Quote:Hi,
Those links are "evenhanded"?
--Pete
Well the first one is. The second one I edited in afterwards, although I guess I should have changed the phrasing at that point. I thought about it, but I considered the presentation of a second side evenhanded in some way. If I back up any faster I'm going to bang the back of my head on a wall so I'll stop here.
Fact is the second link actually deals with what the author says (well after the opening ad hominem attack anyway) which is, I believe, what needs to be considered. And it does a pretty good job ripping it apart. Of course if the first link is to be believed then Carlin himself acknowledges that the report wasn't really printable.
Basically, the argument that since someone published something then it must have some merit is always tenuous (though admittedly it is often the case in science that that has to suffice), but especially when the 'someone' is not an expert in the field and the 'published' is not in a peer reviewed journal. At that point I feel it is incumbent on anyone who quotes the guy to look at the data.