|
|
|
|
|
|
by edmccaffrey
6097 days ago
|
|
|
> It definitely discredited the article and the scientists involved. How can a statement by the editor of a journal who didn't have anything to do with the study beyond publishing it discredit the scientists that did the research? Guilt by association is well established as a logical fallacy. |
|
|
Yes but there is a significant portion of the population that doesn't understand this. They are indeed likely to give the both the article and the underlying research much less credit.
> Guilt by association is well established as a logical fallacy.
It depends on your context. The underlying proposition is unaffected by its supporters but your 'best guess' view of it based on limited information needs to take this into consideration. Apart from unreliable sources I'm sure there are some people who pass on information which is anti-correlated with the truth. A biblical creationist is likely to be strongly attracted to exactly research that an evolutionist would dismiss. Both of these two would be right in pre-judging any research put forward by the other as have a reduced probability of being valid according to their views of reality.