|
|
|
|
|
|
by pas
3322 days ago
|
|
|
The book is tained by the publisher. It's a perfectly valid reason in a very complex and delicate debate, such as climate change and pharma innovation regulation. Even if the book is fine, it might not be the total picture, thus it could mislead you by omission. And it can be totally in good faith, it's just bias. So, even if the book is a good overview, it's just a voice in a discussion, and without hearing what others think of the book, it's pretty good to go by what one knows of the publisher. |
|
|
There is the crux of your... argument. How about you read the book and then come back? You sure have a lot to say about something you never looked at.
You can't improve how "the other side" is arguing (or not arguing), but you sure have 100% control over your own behavior and discussion habits. Attacking the people instead of the work is as bad as it gets, especially if you never even set eye on the latter. I won't read it either, but I don't have an opinion about it that I'm trying to share.