In Reply to: And what's more.... posted by robert young on July 24, 2010 at 16:58:42:
The intended point? GMAB.
1. In the OP, AS asserted that some objectivists relied on articles without seeing if they could be criticized. He asserted some did but AS offered no evidence. He gave a couple of examples, which I showed did not establish his point, since the threads included quite rational criticisms of a DBT run at McGill U.
2. AS showed the URL of an article on meta-analysis, one that is a sort of a good beginning but which has some severe limitations as pointed out by Tony Lauck. AS tried to deny he had any other purpose, in effect denying no. 1 and most of his OP. But it is clear a main purpose was to attack (some) objectivists.
Of course, AS also kept talking about "undesired" results of DBTs, which is the fallacy of poisoning the well, rather than unexpected results. Meanwhile, he persisted in making unjustified and irrelevant personal attacks on me.
So, in fact, I systematically analyzed his OP. Moreover, I did, in fact, find an objectivist who did rely on the superseded article. AS did not, I did.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: And what's more.... - Pat D 18:32:39 07/24/10 (8)
- I'm still laughing... - robert young 20:44:50 07/24/10 (7)
- LOL - Pat D 05:27:05 07/25/10 (6)
- No, not THAT world, Pat. - carcass93 08:15:30 07/25/10 (2)
- Yeah, illusions can be fun. - Pat D 09:23:26 07/25/10 (1)
- I suppose - kerr 04:38:48 07/26/10 (0)
- An adult using LOL and GMAB.... - robert young 07:40:17 07/25/10 (2)
- Hmmm . . . I learned most of such acronym here at AA. (nt) - Pat D 09:24:50 07/25/10 (1)
- Oh, GMAB! - kerr 04:40:30 07/26/10 (0)