My astute and dedicated readers oft disagree with my opinions. That is good because in doing so they stimulate thinking, and thinking is good.
Obviously when one reads a post, one overlays opinions to interpret the post. I stand by my earlier post today. I found the cited post anti-CER.
If we are not careful, we will find the answer to the question, which of our current treatments is most effective, when we should be applying our energy, imagination and resources to answering the question, how can we significantly improve on current treatments.
We can and we should work on both issues. I disagree strongly with the assumption that CER will hamper "basic research".
I hope the medical blogosphere is mature enough to allow for strong disagreement. I do not believe I created a straw man, but respect your right to make that assumption.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Misrepresentation of an opponent's position is a straw man argument. To simply claim the post is anti-CER is to miss the argument of how CER may affect other types of research. How is it that your interpretation of the linked post isn't a misrepresentation? There's nothing wrong with taking a deep breath and recognizing that it was. The argument over whether CER is a good thing or not is another separate issue.
Exactly. The article DB attacked merely pointed out some reasonable concerns about CER without attacking CER. Personally, I thought it was almost too careful not to be blunt.