From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:21:34 GMT

In article <BzA8xz.EDF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <1992Dec15.004206.20384@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> 	Unless I missed something, you've once again completely misinterpreted
>> 	Martin's postings.  As I recall it, he questioned the qualifications
>> 	of a psychiatrist with two published papers to set himself up as an
>> 	expert in human nutrition to the population at large.  Barnard has
>> 	set himself up as the holder of Truth-Based-On-Fact(tm).  Science
>> 	does not, in general, recognize such excursions out of one's field
>> 	of expertise.  
>
>I think I understand your point, Rich.  What you're saying is 
>that Martin's commentaries in areas such as ethics, law, 
>medicine, history, and so on, ought to be discounted...  in view 
>of the fact that Martin has an "abysmal" publication record in 
>these diverse fields.  

	Martin is posting articles to Usenet, not calling press conferences
	to mislead the public about the facts of human nutrition.

>> Now, you may consider this unfair, and perhaps it is,
>> but it is the situation as it exists; psychiatrists with two published
>> papers are not generally considered to be "experts" in human nutrition.
>> For such a person to imply otherwise to the general public is hardly
>> the highest of ethical standards.
>
>You've certainly blathered on and on in talk.food.veg concerning 
>human nutrition.  As I recall, you even had the gall to depict 
>yourself as the "voice of reasons".

	Which, you may note, is not equivalent to "an expert in the field."

>How many papers have you 
>published in the field of nutrition?  Do you have an MD degree?  Or 
>anything coming close?  [junior college perhaps?]   

	My qualifications in the field are at least as good as yours,
	Russell.  How many papers have YOU published in the field of
	nutrition?  In any other field?  Do YOU have an MD degree?  Or
	anything coming close?  [junior college perhaps?]

	My credentials aren't at issue here, only yours and Martin's.

>> ...
>> Martin simply questioned Barnard's already-published credentials...
>> it was YOU who asked Martin to present his, and have since refused
>> to reciprocate.
>
>Is it reasonable to resolve a factual dispute by criticizing a speaker's 
>credentials.

	In the case of Barnard's pronouncements to the press, it is quite
	reasonable to question his qualifications in the field of human
	nutrition if he is going to set himself up as an expert to the public.
	If he'd simply been expressing opinions on Usenet, no one would
	have said a word.  Remember Shockley (sp?) when he made his pronounce-
	ments about the mental capabilities of blacks vs. whites?  No one
	questions his abilities in semiconductor physics, but there was great
	skepticism when he wandered into the field of anthropology.  Why
	should Barnard the psychiatrist be treated any differently when he
	holds press conferences regarding human nutrition?

>> You don't care what Martin's credentials are, you'll never reveal
>> yours, and it's clear that your interest is simply the argument, not
>> the information which might be contained within it.  Don't expect
>> intellectual respect when you give none.
>
>I don't think you understand the meaning of the term, "intellectual
>respect".   

	Had you stopped after the first three words, you'd have been exactly
	correct.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals