"While the idea that Fukushima would be responsible for a 35% increase in infant mortality anywhere in the U.S. strains ones credulity"

Credulity doesn't factor into it. I found their "article" to be insulting in its lack of statistical rigor. If you have not read it, then you should read it.

They compare two averages - each taken over a completely different length of time. They do not even make the smallest attempt to control for any external factors. Finally, they look at some dates and assume direct causation.

This doesn't even make it to my credulity. It stops short of it, landing somewhere between disgust and amusement.

"her being anti-nuclear is not proof of her being wrong"

No, but her shabby statistical methodology does nothing to help her cause.

Perhaps I should have put the link to their article first before I introduced their backgrounds.

"It's not like MIT nuclear scientists are \"disinterested parties\", either."

No, but they are in an entirely different realm when it comes to the rigorousness of their methodology.

It is all well and good to have an opinion one way or another, but I do not think that we should pretend that there is any equivalence between the MIT nuclear scientists and Dr Sherman.

If you want to see intelligent debate on the merits of nuclear power, may I make the following recommendation:

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/681

(Note: It is not entirely obvious, but you can navigate between the phases of the debate by click the dates on the "latest updates bar".)

"There are two competing effects at work here, and it's hard to say which is strongest: If you are biased one way or another, you probably will put more effort into finding facts that support your view. That doesn't mean that those facts are wrong"

Are we talking about facts or opinions? Facts, by definition, are true. With that definition in mind, facts can not be "wrong".

I should hope that if someone is making an argument they go through whatever efforts needed to find and report the facts that support their case.

"just that you have acquired a self-reinforced, biased view of the world."

If you see two sides in a debate and both sides have strong, compelling arguments then it is the responsibility of you, the individual, to make your own choice.

However, just because someone favors a certain perspective on an issue does not mean that their viewpoint should be discarded because they are "biased".

Bias is not as simple of a concept as you make it out to be. Any issue worthy of intelligent debate and discussion is likely to be extremely nuanced.

There will be an interaction between the nuances of a complex issue and the personal values that people place on certain things.

In other words, it is possible for more than one group of people to be "right" on a certain issue. However, I think that the key point to remember here is that building an argument based on facts is a prerequisite to correctness.

"But saying this argument is like pointing out \"motive\" in a trial seems like a stretch. Motive would usually include financial or other similar types of gain. If saying things you believe are right makes you liable to a charge of having motive to lying just because you have an opinion, then you can't trust anyone except completely ignorant people, which is not a step forward."

Actually, I completely agree with you here. I read the comment describing my initial argument as "motive", but you would figure that in order to have a motive someone had to have committed a crime.

Maybe this is a good explanation. I suppose that from my perspective their "article" was a "crime against statistics", and having elected myself judge, jury, and executioner all that I needed to do is come up with their motivation.

I probably should have made my perspective a little more clear in my original post, but I was trying to be succinct. Unfortunately, in my quest for succinctness, I created a post that may be construed as suboptimal.