From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:36:15 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <STEINLY.92Jul28133353@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>   In article <JMC.92Jul25195926@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>   >   >I dunno about Greenpeace, but Ralph Nader did try to ban microwave
>   >   >ovens for that reason.  If Nader is responsible for the slower
>   >   >penetration of microwave ovens in the U.S. as compared to Japan,
>   >   >he killed a lot of children.  No-one has been injured by a microwave
>   >   >oven, but the conventional cooking that might have been displaced
>   >   >partly by microwave cooking has proabably killed a few hundred
> 
>   Please note: "No-one has been injured by a microwave oven". 
>
>As another poster noted, this is reducing to what "injury by a
>microwave" means. If indeed John contends that no toes have
>been broken by dropped microwaves he is wrong - I personally
>do not consider superheating or steam explosions to be injuries
>"by microwaves" and I do _know_ that conventional ovens 
>directly cause massive injuries.

This is a rather weak change of argument. Replacing the phrase "microwave
oven" by "microwave" changes the meaning of the sentence. 

>   We don't know either (a) what Nader's arguments were, or (b) what
>   the relative rates of injury are, or (c) whether Nader's activities
>   lead to more stringent safety standards for microwave ovens. What
>   we have, instead is a specious chain of shaky reasoning, founded on
>   a false statement and relying on a dubious deductive rule.
>
>I took "Nader's argument" to be one given - it is at some level
>irrelevant whether Nader used it or whether he was effective,

It is? In support of a claim that Nader used "lawyers science" in the
cause of a scientifically invalid argument which "killed children", you 
claim that "it is at some level irrelevant" whether or not Nader's 
case has been presented accurately. This seems to reduce to "I don't
like Ralph Nader so it doesn't matter whether I slander him or not."
All in a good cause.

>what matters is whether the argument was made knowing anything about
>the relative injury rates _and_ whether a statement based on the
>failure to consider a possible decrease in other injuries, considering
>only the possibility of new injuries is consistent with the position
>Nader and others advocate. I note you carefully deleted that
>paragraph. I ask again, is it not incumbent on someone advocating
>restraint based on possible indirect harm to also consider the
>possible harm caused by accepting the restraint?

Sure. 

>	Or is ethical consistency irrelevant to you?

I find this question interesting. Does it not seem to you that one should
nail down a few actual data points before making an accusation of the 
magnitude that "X killed children" ?

>   >The specific instance used above is at an end due to lack of data
>   >and the particpants lack of inclination to gather the necesary data
>   >(I would, my commercial rate is $125 per hour!). However, the data
>   >used in the argument so far is at least as good as that used by Nader
>   >in the first place, and so should be considered, no?
>
>   I have no idea what data was used by Nader in the first place, and am
>   under the impression that neither you nor Prof. McCarthy are much more
>   knowledgeable. If one is going to accuse others of "lawyers science", it
>   seems as if a short stint in the library might be in order.  
>
>Hmm, you hold us to a higher standard than those you defend? Do you
>know any more of the issue? My impression is not.

I'm not the one advancing or defending the argument that Nader's actions
killed children.  You are defending the argument, yet you know neither
what Naders actions actually were, or anything about the actual facts at
issue. Thus, your argument is pure ideology, untrammeled by any factual
content.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment