this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
151 points (97.5% liked)
Canada
7226 readers
457 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
π Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
π Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They're using a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit. That's a good thing
Yeah, I don't care about that argument. They'll say they used science to determine if a company can increase their profits to the detriment of our health and tell us it's good for us.
This is Canada, file a freedom of information request, read the peer reviewed articles. Using a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit is exactly what they should be doing. Anti-science conspiracy theories wrapped in cynicism is not helpful.
No I agree it's not helpful. But in this day and age with the type of capitalism what we're living in, forgive me for being cynical.
In Michigan, they tried to convince the people that the water had an acceptable level of lead and that they had nothing to worry about. Even Obama came to support the local government on this. And it turned out it wasn't true. They came up with "scientific" evidence to try to prove it. All of this to support a local business that fucked up the local water supply when changing the aqueducts or some shit.
And I'm sorry but I don't have time to do requests through the freedom of information act and potentially have to fight some bureaucrat because I'm not a journalist.
Why do you hold such strong opinions about something about which you are not well-informed?
edit: also, we need more citizen journalist to help fill the void as unfortunately local newspapers are disappearing
We DO need more and better journalists that investigate and find the truth and inform people. Right now it feels like media companies all have some kind of agenda and everything is just clickbait to generate revenue.
Noam Chomsky was right. It's called the Propaganda Model of Communication.
100% and commercial social media algorithms amplify the clickbait and bury and nuanced perspectives
βSafe Food Matters president Mary Lou McDonald agreed. Accessing the health and safety data the PMRA uses to determine MRLs is challenging due to stringent limits on what data can be seen β and shared β by the public to protect pesticide companies' intellectual property. She noted issues with the accuracy and relevance of the data used by the government in its assessment process.
Moreover, she noted the PMRA and pesticide manufacturers have a close working relationship β an issue also flagged by Lanphear.β
Mary Lou McDonald is a lawyer from an anti-pesticide charity, not a scientist.
Do you have anything that refutes her points? Or are you just resorting to the ad hominem fallacy?
Firstly, the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim and Mary Lou McDonald offers no evidence for her claim.
Secondly, I'm not making an ad hominem fallacy. I'm not attacking Mary Lou McDonald's character. I'm pointing out that she is not an expert in this field.
@Greg @Rodeo
The first burden of proof is on the pesticide manufacturers/nation users who have put forth the request to raise limits through their lobbyists.
That's literally an ad hominem fallacy lmao. What is expertise if not part of ones character?
You are not an expert either, but that doesn't mean anything you say about it is untrue and should be discarded. If you make a claim the validity of that claim is what should be debated, not whether your credentials are relevant.
I made two points above. Mary Lou McDonald offered no evidence AND she's not a scientist. Mary Lou McDonald didn't make an argument and provide evidence.
This is incorrect. Pointing out that someone is not an expert in a technical field they are discussing is not an ad hominem fallacy. That's a ridiculous idea.
Protip: don't get medical advice from lawyers
From the Wikipedia page for ad hominem:
What a "ridiculous idea" lmao
Righto, get a lawyer to fly your plane π€£ Qualifications and knowledge of science are obviously relative here
Being a lawyer doesn't preclude knowledge of science.
You're just wrong pal, be a man and take the loss.
Obviously! I never said being a lawyer precludes knowledge of science. Your comment is a ludicrous straw man π
If you recall, we are talking about what constitutes an ad hominem attack. Since being a lawyer does not preclude knowledge of science, pointing out that she is a lawyer constitutes an ad hominem attack.
Let me know if you need that spelled out for you yet again.
I never said she doesn't know anything about science because she's a lawyer. I'm saying that she's not a scientist and she works for an anti pesticide organization. Both of those facts are important and not mentioned in the article. I never attacked her character.
Again, what is expertise if not part of one's character?
You're really having a hard time with this one eh?
I think this is where we disagree, I donβt believe that clarifying someoneβs expertise is an attack on their character. I donβt accept medical advice from people who have no expertise in medicine. Itβs not a judgment on their character, is a matter of relevant expertise.
You seem to be a little too focused on the word "attack".
She made specific points and your response to those points was to fault to her expertise. You didn't respond to her points; you responded to her character.
Relevant or not, it is still ad hominem.
She made this specific point. Her expertise is relevant to her statement as no evidence is offered. I'm making no judgement on her character by pointing out her expertise.
If a cop pulls you over for speeding and asks for your drivers license, it's not an ad hominem attack. Context is important and there is nuance to labeling arguments as ad hominem.
So you're not disputing her point at all then? If you've nothing to dispute, then how is expertise even relevant?
If Mary Lou McDonald was a toxicology expert her statement about the accuracy of the data would have more relevance. If Mary Lou McDonald had outlined the actual issues with the accuracy of the data her statement would have more relevance.
She is not offering details about issues with the data, so her expertise is important context.
The argument that expertise is part of character, therefore any mention of expertise is a fallacious ad hominem argument ignores the importance of expertise in giving context to a statement. A statement about health obviously has more relevance coming from a doctor than an influencer (assuming they're not also a doctor).
And yet the veracity of such a statement is completely independent of anyone's expertise.
Can you expand on that idea? I'm not sure I understand.
Also, as a side note, I appreciate this debate and having my arguments challenged. Lemmy is great for more constructive conversations.
That's the foundation of ad hominem. It doesn't matter whether a two year who knows nothing or an expert with a life of experience says "climate change is happening", because the expertise of the person making the statement has no bearing on the truth of the statement itself. The two year old who can barely think is still right, even though he's not an expert, and if you want to debate it then you have to debate whether climate change is happening, not whether the two year old knows anything.
Would you concede that in cases where no evidence is provided, a climate expert saying "climate change will affect x" has more validity than a non climate expert saying "climate change will not affect x"?
No. A statement has the same validity regardless of who says it.
I'm not talking about the validity of an argument as no argument is made in either statement. So maybe validity was a poor choice of wording. Which statement would you trust more?
Well if we're talking about trust, then we are talking about belief, and if you're moving into the realm of belief then there is no point in any further discussion of reason.
You initially claimed that mentioning expertise was an ad hominem fallacy. That's what we've been discussing. Can you now appreciate that mentioning expertise in this case is not an ad hominem fallacy?