Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler? • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#181

Post by WhitneyLand » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:41 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #169

piker wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you both for taking the time to create accounts and respond. Both of these responses are amazing, and it's lurkers/posters like you that make this site great. One question: some of your responses attack only the credibility of the speaker (OP's 1st, 4th and your 4th, 5th points). Is this typical in scientific discourse? They seem to detract from your analysis to me.

It's an Internet myth that the credibility of an argument's source is out of bounds in a debate. If and only if the arguer's credibility has no logical connection to their argument, then attacking the arguer is fallacious. Otherwise, as is very much the case here, it is not.

Good point. I think people may confuse logic with believability.

I could propose in this comment a cure for cancer based on a perfectly sound a logical argument and my (lack of medical) credibility would have zero affect on the cogency of what I was saying.

But it does mean, you should probably not be convinced, or at least not send me all of your money to invest in my cancer research startup.

Also for some reason it's very easy to judge something as reasonable when we actually don't have any domain expertise. Not sure why, it seems built into most of us to feel natural.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#182

Post by otterley » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:41 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #170

otterley wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Just because a conclusion is based on logically fallacious arguments doesn't mean it's untrue, or that the arguments should have no persuasive power whatsoever. (Taken to its logical extreme, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)

Attacking the arguer's credibility isn't fallacious if their argument depends in any way on their credibility, as it clearly does in this Newsweek story.

I'm not familiar with that exception in logical thinking. What argument is logically dependent on someone's credibility?

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#183

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

WhitneyLand wrote: post #181

tptacek wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an Internet myth that the credibility of an argument's source is out of bounds in a debate. If and only if the arguer's credibility has no logical connection to their argument, then attacking the arguer is fallacious. Otherwise, as is very much the case here, it is not.

Good point. I think people may confuse logic with believability. I could propose in this comment a cure for cancer based on a perfectly sound a logical argument and my (lack of medical) credibility would have zero affect on the cogency of what I was saying. But it does mean, you should probably not be convinced, or at least not send me all of your money to invest in my cancer research startup. Also for some reason it…

I'm not going to give an inch on this. This isn't an issue of logic versus persuasion. It is logically valid to attack the credibility of an argument that depends in any way, implicitly or overtly, on the credibility or authority of its bearer.

The "ad hominem fallacy" is misused on the Internet probably more than it is applied correctly.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#184

Post by hornbaker » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:44 PM UTC

WhitneyLand wrote: post #179

throwaway7890 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a neurosurgeon, and am also skeptical. Here are some thoughts after looking at the actual paper in Med Gas Research. First, after looking at the MRI, I see more evidence of cerebral edema than of infarction. The MRI sequence that would show the actual infarction, DWI is presented, but as a 3d volume(which I have never seen done before with DWI) and does not show the thalami where most of the FLAIR hyperintensity…

Words I didn't know, in case it saves others a couple minutes... Infarction - Tissue death due to inadequate blood supply Edema - Abnormal build up up fluid within the body Cortex - Wrinkly, outermost layer of the brain. Thalamus - Part of the brain relating to sensory and motor signals. DWI - Form of MRI. Measures Brownian motion of water molecules. Does not necessarily involve driving while intoxicated

Cortical, in this context, refers to the cortex of the brain (the wrinkly, outermost layer).

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#185

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

WhitneyLand wrote: post #179

throwaway7890 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a neurosurgeon, and am also skeptical. Here are some thoughts after looking at the actual paper in Med Gas Research. First, after looking at the MRI, I see more evidence of cerebral edema than of infarction. The MRI sequence that would show the actual infarction, DWI is presented, but as a 3d volume(which I have never seen done before with DWI) and does not show the thalami where most of the FLAIR hyperintensity…

Words I didn't know, in case it saves others a couple minutes... Infarction - Tissue death due to inadequate blood supply Edema - Abnormal build up up fluid within the body Cortex - Wrinkly, outermost layer of the brain. Thalamus - Part of the brain relating to sensory and motor signals. DWI - Form of MRI. Measures Brownian motion of water molecules. Does not necessarily involve driving while intoxicated

[deleted]

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#186

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

WhitneyLand wrote: post #179

throwaway7890 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a neurosurgeon, and am also skeptical. Here are some thoughts after looking at the actual paper in Med Gas Research. First, after looking at the MRI, I see more evidence of cerebral edema than of infarction. The MRI sequence that would show the actual infarction, DWI is presented, but as a 3d volume(which I have never seen done before with DWI) and does not show the thalami where most of the FLAIR hyperintensity…

Words I didn't know, in case it saves others a couple minutes... Infarction - Tissue death due to inadequate blood supply Edema - Abnormal build up up fluid within the body Cortex - Wrinkly, outermost layer of the brain. Thalamus - Part of the brain relating to sensory and motor signals. DWI - Form of MRI. Measures Brownian motion of water molecules. Does not necessarily involve driving while intoxicated

[deleted]

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#187

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #182

tptacek wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attacking the arguer's credibility isn't fallacious if their argument depends in any way on their credibility, as it clearly does in this Newsweek story.

I'm not familiar with that exception in logical thinking. What argument is logically dependent on someone's credibility?

For instance, this Newsweek article and the claims made by the doctor in it depend on the doctor's own reports of their interpretations of MRI scans. Observing that the doctor making those interpretations is disreputable is an important and logically meaningful point.

Really what you're observing is that the argument in Newsweek sidesteps logic and appeals implicitly to the authority of that doctor. Presented with the argument that the subject of the article is credible enough to be believed on their own terms, we're left with a debate about that subject's credibility.

The weird idea embedded in this meta-debate is that alone among all the innumerable topics we can address with logical argument, from rankings of Led Zeppelin songs to the proper distribution of ownership of the means of production between capital and labor, the credibility of a human being on any particular subject is exempt from scrutiny, lest we fall into the trap of "ad hominem".

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#188

Post by komali2 » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:49 PM UTC

Come on, whoever you are. You're seriously going to drop words like infarction, thalami, FLAIR hyper intensity, massive cortical infarction on us? What's the point? Maybe 1% of the people on this public forum will have even the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Luckily someone else has posted a dictionary underneath you, but I mean, surely you're used to speaking to laymen? You couldn't have just said "tissue death" instead of "infarction?"

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#189

Post by mholmes680 » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:49 PM UTC

Sleeep wrote: post #91

mholmes680 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

since i first heard of dry drowning earlier this summer, i haven't been able to enjoy a pool with my 1 and 2 year olds. It's taken the place of SIDS for me.

Don't they have infant and toddler level swimming classes?

Both of my kids can happily float /doggie paddle in floaties so far, with the older one in daily classes. She started at age 6 months--she's old enough to understand it, but the article that prompted my fears was about a 6 year old who just happened to inhale enough water to make a difference a week later. My younger one is still testing to see what he can get away with, and can't communicate things like "hey my chest feels funny" yet.

When my wife and I were on our honeymoon we watched a couple throw their 6 month old (10 month maybe? wasn't walking, only crawling) in the pool over and over again. Most of the pool looked on in horror, but they had taught her the "leg kick to turn over onto her back and float" skill. Definitely gave us perspective.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#190

Post by Karunamon » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

It is also completely irrelevant to the correctness or incorrectness of the argument, which is often what gets missed. Authority is a heuristic, nothing more.

The evaluation of P -> Q happens independently of the speaker. If you're trying to refute P -> Q by mentioning an attribute of the speaker, you're necessarily answering some other question entirely, while making an excuse to ignore the original question.

You can say that someone making such an argument is more likely to be incorrect based on their beliefs, but that's still an untested hypothesis (more bluntly, a rationalization) until you actually sit down, stop making excuses, and verify it yourself.

Excuses aren't logic. You can say you don't have time, and that's valid, you can say you don't want to, and that's valid, but don't say you're doing logic. You're coming up with reasons to avoid doing logic.