From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:56:25 GMT


From article <1992Dec22.023342.6554@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> 1. Please detail for us the credentials of Dr. Neal Barnard which
ry> qualify him to speak with authority on the subject of
ry> nutrition, or more specifically, make recommendations to
ry> the press regarding the role milk should play in the human
ry> diet.

In article <BznDqx.J0t@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> You're asking me to make a contribution to an argument that I 
rl> regard as fallacious...  namely the notion that a man's 
rl> statements should be accepted or discarded on the basis of his 
rl> authority.  

From article <1992Dec23.004207.21734@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> Now THERE'S an answer to instill pride in the most inveterate of
ry> politicians!  I'm asking you to provide me with information which
ry> might lend some credence to Dr. Barnard's ex cathedra pronouncements
ry> to the popular press.  What are his credentials in the field of
ry> human nutrition?

You're not learning, Rich.  As I've pointed out previously, your 
notion that we can determine the truth or falsity of a set of 
statements by appealing to the personal characteristics of the 
speaker is a fallacy.  

ry> I appreciate the fact that you may find it uncomfortable to admit
ry> that he has none and was merely expressing his opinion, but then,
ry> it was you who chose to spring to his defense with bow drawn and
ry> quiver empty.

So says the man who likes to refer to himself as the "voice of reason".
Would you mind providing us with information that would lend credence
to your "ex cathedra" pronouncements on usenet?

Incidently, Neal Barnard has an MD degree at the very least.  Have
you got an MD degree?  [Note: It doesn't matter to me whether you
do or don't, but it's only fitting that we apply the same test
to Rich Young's ideas that Rich Young would apply to Neal Barnard's
thoughts.]

rl> Please detail the credentials of Rich Young that qualify him to 
rl> represent himself as the "voice of reason" while dishing out 
rl> largely unwanted nutrition "advice" to the readers of rec.food.veg?

ry> I'm not sure of the precise context, but if you'd care to reproduce
ry> it, I'd be happy to explain.  And are you so sure that what I "dish
ry> out" is so totally unwanted?  You might also want to reconsider your
ry> characterization of what I post as "advice"...you've been wrong
ry> once already in this thread, and these leading questions will
ry> continue to get you into trouble.  By the way, when, exactly, DID
ry> you stop molesting your neighbor's little boy?

You're avoiding the question, Rich.  If you want to address Neal 
Barnard's credentials, then you surely can't object to the fact 
that I'm now addressing your credentials.  For the sake of 
logical consistency, it won't matter whether you've supplied your
readers with references...  anymore than it would have mattered 
to you if Neal Barnard supplied his listeners with references.  
What matters is your credentials, pure and simple.  Have you got 
any credentials?   

ry> 2. Please explain for us precisely how you manage to transmogrify
ry> a claim of reasonableness to a claim, or even an implication,
ry> of expertise.

rl> This doesn't make sense.  Please elaborate.

ry> You keep trying to make a claim of reasonableness into an implication,
ry> or even a claim, of expertise.  I want you to explain by what twisted
ry> logic you accomplish this transmogrification?  It's perfectly clear
ry> as originally asked.

This still doesn't make sense.  Did Neal Barnard make an 
unsubstantiated statement that appealed to his own character, such as 
"My statements are true because I'm the voice of reason", or perhaps, 
"What I say is true because I gave myself an IQ test and scored 150+".

rl> Did Neal Barnard claim to be "an expert"?

ry> Neal Barnard wasn't posting to Usenet.

Do you understand the concept of "special pleading"?  Let's 
suppose, just for the sake of argument, that every reporter who 
was invited to the PCRM news conference had daily access to 
usenet, and hence, would be exposed to a daily dose of articles
from Rich Young.  In such a case, would it be unethical for Rich 
Young to continue posting dietary and medical advice to usenet...
just as you say that it's unethical for Neal Barnard to give press 
conferences?  

rl> Did he claim to be the "voice of reason"?

ry> In a way, yes.  

Not really.   You, on the other hand, have explicitly used this
phrase to describe your own character.  

ry> He claimed that the American public is being purposely
ry> misled regarding the consumption of dairy products and that he, in
ry> rejecting these claims, was speaking The Truth(tm).

Without engaging in "special pleading", please explain why its 
ethically acceptable for the Dairy Board to hand out "educational" 
materials to naive elementary school children, yet ethically 
unacceptable for a group of licensed physicians to share their views 
on the hazards of milk consumption to a group of adult reporters who 
are used to the controversies of the adult world.  Is it reasonable 
for the government to make dairy products (the #2 source of fat 
calories in the typical US diet) the mainstay of food handouts for the 
poor...  given the fact that heart disease and stroke are the first and 
third ranked causes of death in the US?  

rl> Or, did he simply state his opinions while supporting them with facts
rl> and rational arguments?  

ry> Yes, he DID express his opinion, while hiding behind his M.D. and
ry> pretending that he had some expertise in the field about which he
ry> commented.  This is tolerated on a forum of opinions such as Usenet,
ry> but it is intellectually dishonest when perpetrated upon a public
ry> not used to critical review of their family doctor's opinions.

You're full of doublestandards and special pleadings, Rich.

You're accusing Barnard of "hiding" behind his MD degree while 
simultaneously deriding him for not having credentials.  What 
exactly is an MD degree... if not an entitlement for a person to 
share his opinions on matters of health and disease. 

> [...]
rl> I didn't attend the PCRM press conference, but I've read several 
rl> articles on milk consumption in PCRM's journal and those articles 
rl> were amply footnoted.  Do you know whether or not PCRM 
rl> distributed handouts to the press containing pointers to the 
rl> literature?  

ry> Do you?

rl> No, I don't.  However, I do know that a three page article on dairy
rl> products that was recently published in PCRM's journal was accompanied
rl> by twenty-eight footnotes.  It would truly surprise me if PCRM had
rl> failed to hand out references at their recent press conference on
rl> milk.

ry> Didn't you just castigate Martin for jumping to conclusions without
ry> actually having the facts at hand?  Apparently you work in a "do as
ry> I say, not as I do" mode.

I didn't jump to conclusions.  You asked me a question and I answered:
"I don't know".   Does that sound like I was jumping to conclusions?
For a guy who publicly claims to have an IQ above 150, you seem to be 
a careless reader.

ry> If you don't know, then don't try to feed us a line of bovine
ry> excreta...it doesn't smell any better in Louisiana than it does
ry> anywhere else.

In lieu of addressing Barnard's credentials, why don't you try to
find out if attendees at the milk press conference were provided
with references to the scientific literature? 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals