I See Another Slippery Slope for More Government Butt-in-ski-ism

"Dr" Betty Martini? That is an alias for Nancy Markle - or vice versa.

One of the funniest exchanges I ever read on a message board was "Betty Martini" trying to convince the scientists on, iirc, the Neurophysics bb the physical effects of aspartame. At first, they were very polite as they explained the problems with her explanations but she simply repeated the same things with more exclamation points. Then they rather gently made fun of her, but she never even noticed. I mean, total obvious fraud.

This link to How to Spot a Fraudulent Website used Nancy Markle/Betty Martini as its example. The tips and techniques may come in handy if used on other, equally absurd ones.

 

OK Daisy...

I'm seriously freaked out. We've agreed twice today.

Outstanding article...I had been looking for that (I had it sent to me a while back). Thanks.

 

A similar tool is Dr. Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
===================================================
CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

* Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
* Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
* Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
* Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
* Quantify, wherever possible.
* If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
* "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are

* Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
* Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

 

Attacking the messenger is a classic form of public relations. I know next to nothing about this Betty Martini or what ever her name is but I do know alittle something anout the father of modern public reltaions, Edward Bernays. Given enough time and money the power monopolies like Monsanto could convince the public that drinking their pesticides straight is good for you.

The chemical industry has been using propaganda and skewed research to manufacture public consent to increase market share and profits for years Daisy, give me some good reasons why I should accept their hired guns word as gospel over independent researchers and scientists about aspartame or any other chemical they say is safe for use.

 

Cool! Now use the "baloney test kit" on the research of Searles scientists. Also you might want to do alittle study on some other propaganda techniques. As used by the MSM and our government everyday to manufacture public consent.

Thanks Daisy!

 

If a student in a school is allergic to peanuts, the school bans all peanut properties from the school, just in case. If there is a student at the school that is allergin to peanuts, I cannot send trail mix or a PB sandwich to school with my son.

Check the airlines.

The same hold true with onions, garlic, laytex, etc.

Our local elementary school has banned balloons completely, because there is a student who is allergic to laytex.

 

In this case, the messenger, Betty Martini, is a giant fraud. More than just a "messenger" she is a deliberate liar and hoaxer. The studies she cites are bogus. Check out the products she wants to sell instead - that should tell you something.

Look, Poncho, I don't love Monsato for a lot of reasons, but this aspartame thing is ridiculous. It is dangerous for a certain set of people, phenokenetics or something - they are born without a certain enzyme - but that's about all.

Might be safer than sugar & corn syrup which rots your teeth and makes you fat.

Acetaminophen is a lot more available. It's particularly bad for the liver if mixed with alcohol.

 

Okay Daisy I'm not going to argue with you about it. I'll just say that anytime I see big government and big business combining their efforts to sell any product to the public or to limit the choice of products good or bad I get these weird visuals of big brother dressed like Benito Mussolini.