Re:Learn how to properly critique--get scientifically literate

In your case, telling someone else they are experiencing dissonance is like complaining about the speck of dust in someone else's eye, while there is a pile of dirt in yours.

The probability is much greater that you are experiencing far greater dissonance than the person you were critiquing. After all you claim to have extensive knowledge of anatomy and side with conventional medical opinion on almost everything so your emotional connection to your medical community is much stronger. You are the one who has the greater desire to see the medical community and all its aspects, like The Lancet, as all good and kept on holy ground. Or, if you don't understand that, kept at the top of the hierarchy. Any criticism of The Lancet is brushed aside. You have to keep it, The Lancet, looking good.

I don't think those you criticize for having dissonance have anywhere near the same degree of need to keep up Lancet's appearances for the public as you do. Therefore not anywhere near the same degree of dissonance, if any at all.

They do not have a need for The Lancet's medical articles to be whitewashed as being the whole scientific truth on testing for gallstones. While they may have been disappointed in that they expected more truth from the Lancet article on Gallstones then was there. They are not trying to cover up the flaws in the article's methodology. Several posts were written pointing out the flaws.

You, on the other hand, are trying to bridge the gap between the facts that have been pointed out by others and what you would like to believe is in (as in proven) the Lancet gallstone article. What you would like to believe is there, is not what is actually seen there. Consequently, you feel anxious about the discrepancy.

So what do you do? YOU resolve it by saying IF THE OTHER PERSON IS WRONG BECAUSE THEY do not know how to criticize, then nothing is wrong with the Lancet article after all. The anxious feeling goes down and you resolved it. This way you maintain The Lancet's place of esteem.

You should really try to take your own advice (and learn from it) which is:
"Don't try and resolve your dissonance that way - its not exactly a searching critique of the paper. You can't refute the Lancet paper on scientific grounds- its as simple as that. You just don't want to accept its conclusions" as pointed to by the data in the Lancet article on gallstones.

I pointed out in one post that it is a logical fallacy to infer from one person (the woman described in the Lancet article and her gallstones) to millions of other people. (....I could not find that post....) You whole case rests on this logical fallacy. Logic is part of science. You say you can't refute the Lancet paper on scientific grounds--that's what I used. What other grounds do you use?


You base your conclusion on illogical grounds of evidence. And then you tried to remove contradictory facts brought up by others by saying they were lying about The Lancet on account of their feelings of dissonance. After all, that someone is feeling dissonant is just your opinion. It's your assumption. You did not provide a detailed, searching critique proving this. And, as you pointed out to others "Opinion doesn't equal fact. Proof is required." (from your post of 6/20/2005--7:27:00 PM--in the Liver Flush Debate Forum)

You do not provide proof of dissonance by writing 2 sentences about it. But you do demand proof from others for their opinions. This is another example of how you live by the double standard.
Tweet