Premise: Using a rider on a motorcycle, researchers recently have reported head injuries. However, to achieve this effect, researchers also caused a brick wall to jump up out of the ground in front of the motorcycle when it was moving at 60 miles an hour.
Conclusion: if a shopper sees something interesting in a shop window and steps out to cross the road without looking, they will not receive head injuries.
Hi! Is this a valid argument?
Premise: Using a synthetic cannabinoid drug which resembles marijuana, researchers recently have reported physical withdrawal in animals. However, to achieve this effect, researchers also administered a blocker drug which immediately strips cannabinoids from receptors. Conclusion: “When people stop using marijuana, the drug leaves receptors gradually and they do not experience physical withdrawal.”
5 answers
It would be really nice to receive a serious answer! Jim it appears to me you are being sarcastic and I need real help and guidance!!
I wasn't being sarcastic. The version I made up seems to me about equivalent to the original in its logical value. I was, I admit, hard put to come up with something as obviously wrong.
Chemical effects on animals and humans (or other animals) are well known to be different in many ways, so, for a start, you can't draw more than suggestions from animal studies, ever. Hence the motorcycle/shopper difference. They're both things that move, but not much more alike.
If the original study was on people, the mechanism of withdrawal is still entirely different from the object case; no conclusion can be drawn about normal withdrawal in people from the effects of the chemically-forced withdrawal in animals.
Chemical effects on animals and humans (or other animals) are well known to be different in many ways, so, for a start, you can't draw more than suggestions from animal studies, ever. Hence the motorcycle/shopper difference. They're both things that move, but not much more alike.
If the original study was on people, the mechanism of withdrawal is still entirely different from the object case; no conclusion can be drawn about normal withdrawal in people from the effects of the chemically-forced withdrawal in animals.
I appreciate the clarification Jim. Admittedly, it is a lousy argument, but is it still an argument?
I can't see how it could be a useful argument at any level. Even if you removed the species confounder it would reduce to
"Withdrawal is a side-effect when going through the process using a blocker, THEREFORE there will be no withdrawal when not using the blocker."
Huh? NO! The study hasn't established any causal connection between the blocker and the withdrawal. It has established
blocker drug + deprivation -> withdrawal
but nothing about blocker drug o depribvation on their own.
You may get head injuries if a wall springs up in front of you when you're doing 60, but that doesn't mean that you can't get head-injuries in other ways.
"Withdrawal is a side-effect when going through the process using a blocker, THEREFORE there will be no withdrawal when not using the blocker."
Huh? NO! The study hasn't established any causal connection between the blocker and the withdrawal. It has established
blocker drug + deprivation -> withdrawal
but nothing about blocker drug o depribvation on their own.
You may get head injuries if a wall springs up in front of you when you're doing 60, but that doesn't mean that you can't get head-injuries in other ways.
1 answer