Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by cyberax | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cyberax·

And? Does it make their argument incorrect?

Also, can we now discount all the studies of harm of pesticides, unless they come from the Croplife America?

View on HN

No, her argument makes her argument incorrect. Her bias makes her argument not worth the time.

It makes her arguments highly suspect, yes.

The principle of charity suggests we should assume good intentions about others and their ideas, and give them the benefit of the doubt before criticising them.

https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-the-principle-of-char...

Seems like a great way to get conned. I'll pass.

You can also argue the opposite, that due to her working with a particular interest in proving the organic industry wrong, she is finding factual information about it. As usual, information should be dismissed or confirmed with more information, not with fallacies

OTOH this stuff has already been refuted and pesticide makers lobbying like this, spreading FUD on organic food, is a well known pattern already.

We can't afford properly refuting each occurrence, the effort is highly asymmetrical.

Refuted where? Be specific.

Financial interest in a particular conclusion is a well-known mechanism of producing bullshit science, so yes.

So we should disregard all the research from Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and other environmental organizations?

Are they doing what they are doing for a profit motive?

Does it have to be a profit motive, or any motive would do?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com