• New comments policy – ctd.

    I want to make a small addition to Austin’s post on the comments policy.

    We’re a data driven blog.  You will see few posts, if any, that make claims that are not backed up by evidence or data.  Almost all of what we write comes from our interpretation of publicly available data or peer-reviewed studies.  We endeavor to be explicit about our sources; if we’re not, we expect to be called on it.

    There is no quicker way to get us to ignore your comments that to begin with, “I have no source for the following, but…”

    Well, strike that, the even quicker way to get us to dismiss your comment is to go with, “I see your data and studies, but I’m going to ignore them because I just know you’re wrong.”  You are entitled to your opinion; don’t expect us to engage it.

    We are reasonable people.  We reserve the right to change our minds when confronted with new information.  Therefore, we welcome your coming to us with studies or data you believe support your comments.  I can only speak for myself (but believe Austin would agree) when I say that my posts reflect my understanding of things to the best of my knowledge.  If you show me I am wrong, I will say so.  But you must convince me.  You can’t just say that I’m wrong, well, because.

    Share
    Comments closed
     
    • “You will see few posts, if any, that make claims that are not backed up by evidence or data.”

      But this very thing has recently happened. I’m referring to Austin Frakt’s recent post “No way would I eat this crap” ( ). In that post the claim is made that “it [chicken meat] will be washed with ammonia, soaked in it, actually.” The only “back up” is a link to another blog that simply parrots what someone has read in an e-mail or elsewhere on the internet. Moreover, that source website has already retracted the most egregious claims, and noted that retraction.

      If that’s standard operating procedure, it makes short work of claims in this blog post, particularly “We endeavor to be explicit about our sources; if we’re not, we expect to be called on it.”

      So much for evidence.

      • @Ken Hamer – Read the comments policy.

        This blog has nearly 1,000 posts. Aaron’s old blog probably has hundreds more. You found one that included a link to a questionable claim. A previous commenter had also pointed to a better source. Good job to all and thanks.

        As the post was not important to me or this blog, it has been deleted.