I assume that the implied question is “should we ban it?”
These points are all true, but they just mean “it is involved in bad things” and not “the costs of DHMO exceed its benefits”.
If you make sure to think about things in terms of a cost benefit analysis instead of using the “it’s scary → ban it” heuristic, then you don’t have to have an additional rule to “look for counterarguments anyway”- you’re still looking for arguments.
My point was that if truth is toxic to you, then you have some underlying problems.
I strongly disagree. You don’t have to have underlying problems to be misled (or, for that matter, harmed by others being misled) by malevolently or carelessly cherry-picked evidence.
Well, the example given was just one side of the story (the costs) but not the benefits. If you’re thinking right in this case you shouldn’t be misled, you should just ask “Then why is it so freakin’ common?”
In a less convenient example, if someone tells you about a few studies that support conclusion x (cherry picked out of the larger body of studies that support !x) then that could be harmful if you trust the guy to be an unbiased selector, but in general you should be suspicious of how the studies were selected.
Sure, it’s a bit too strong to say you can never be harmed at all if you are at least half sane, but if you’re that worried about being misled by truth, you probably have some underlying problems to deal with.
I assume that the implied question is “should we ban it?”
These points are all true, but they just mean “it is involved in bad things” and not “the costs of DHMO exceed its benefits”.
If you make sure to think about things in terms of a cost benefit analysis instead of using the “it’s scary → ban it” heuristic, then you don’t have to have an additional rule to “look for counterarguments anyway”- you’re still looking for arguments.
The point was to communicate on a gut-level the first sentence of the post, but here it is in a different way:
When they’re given treacherously or used recklessly, truth is as toxic as hydroxilic acid.
I got that.
My point was that if truth is toxic to you, then you have some underlying problems. Truth doesn’t have to be toxic.
I strongly disagree. You don’t have to have underlying problems to be misled (or, for that matter, harmed by others being misled) by malevolently or carelessly cherry-picked evidence.
No-one said it did.
Well, the example given was just one side of the story (the costs) but not the benefits. If you’re thinking right in this case you shouldn’t be misled, you should just ask “Then why is it so freakin’ common?”
In a less convenient example, if someone tells you about a few studies that support conclusion x (cherry picked out of the larger body of studies that support !x) then that could be harmful if you trust the guy to be an unbiased selector, but in general you should be suspicious of how the studies were selected.
Sure, it’s a bit too strong to say you can never be harmed at all if you are at least half sane, but if you’re that worried about being misled by truth, you probably have some underlying problems to deal with.
And I didn’t say anyone said it did.
The point was to communicate on a gut-level the first sentence of the post, but here it is in a different way:
When offered with bad motives or used without care, truth can as be toxic as hydroxilic acid under the same circumstances.
The point is in the first sentence of the post. Cherry-picked truth can be just as toxic as lies.
The point is in the first sentence: