Hacker News Reader

Comment by krschultz | Hacker News Reader

The big red flag is the sponsor - the CATO institute is hardcore pro-legalization. I love the findings as much as the next libertarian but the report would be more persuasive if it came from a neutral commission.

View on HN

Are you as well doubting Amnesty International findings simply because they are anti-torture? What is wrong with people having convictions and spending money to find facts that support these convictions?

I find the trend towards quick character assassination (rather than looking at the facts) quite annoying. We see it in climate debate, for example, way too often.

"What is wrong with people having convictions and spending money to find facts that support these convictions?"

That's rationalization instead of rationality. Rationality dictates discovering the facts BEFORE you reach the conclusions.

They're still actual facts that other people can use to reach their own conclusions.

Cleverly omitted are other actual facts that other people can use to reach conclusions other than your own.

Maybe an adversarial method would be a better way of addressing these issues in practice, but only when we're responsible enough to read both sides.

Also, it's intellectually dishonest to pick your conclusions first and find the facts later. Even if CATO finds good facts (I'm sure they do), there is most definitely something "wrong with" them.

maybe I should have added the disclaimer - I donate to the CATO institute. I don't doubt the findings, I doubt their value as a political tool because everyone will say "they came from the CATO institute!"

I don't think having an opinion should preclude anyone from producing these kind of reports or reduce their persuasiveness. Personally I'd prefer to read a report from an organisation, such as the CATO institute whose political opinions are well known to me, than an "independent" government commission. At least then I know where they stand.

Exactly, I know where they stand -- so I know to take whatever their findings with a grain of salt. What's that old adage about stats again?

How about "People who generically object to statistics KNOW their own position can't be rationally supported."

I haven't said anything about their stats or methodologies, but I don't know how you can outright dismiss the reputation of the organization when accessing those very things.

This is an intellectually lazy position, like dismissing a the findings of a scientific paper on the basis that the authors began with a hypothesis and sought evidence of its truth. Of course that happens, which is why the quality of sources and methodology should be taken into account.

I haven't real the full paper yet, but the sourcing is impeccable, using government statistics and peer-reviewed papers rather than private surveys or anecdotal evidence.

"What's that old adage about stats again?"

I think "he uses statistics as a drunk man uses a lightpost, for support rather than illumination" is apropos here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com