It is abundantly clear that Ziganto is a bullshitter. By "bullshitter," I mean someone who makes claims merely to achieve a particular effect and has no regard for or concern about the actual truth or falsity of those claims. And I'm not simply name-calling: I have proved that she is a bullshitter in almost a dozen posts here at Your Analytic Analeptic. And I am going to do it again.
But fighting the good fight is difficult, for a number of reasons:
- As will become clear by the end of this post, Ziganto is either ignoring my criticism or she doesn't understand it. She refuses to step up her game or she is incapable of it. I can't be sure which. But she probably thinks she has absolutely nothing to learn from me, since I'm a liberal and I therefore must be completely evil. That's too bad, since responding to criticism can actually make one better.
- It is a lot easier to shovel bullshit than critique it. My job is far more difficult than hers. For example, I try to find sources of information that Ziganto's readers would find acceptable; Ziganto uses whatever sources she wants, many of which are obviously biased and unreliable.
- She produces so much bullshit, she's swimming in it. How can I keep up?
- Her readers probably have no interest in what I have to say, so I can't help them, either. Most of them read her blog because it comforts them to read something that confirms their beliefs, which they don't want to subject to any critical scrutiny anyway.
- Why do conservatives vilify well-educated types like me, including those who, like me, have been trained to evaluate arguments and evidence? Because they do not want their arguments and evidence subjected to critical scrutiny. Their abuse of intellectuals is self-serving: if you're unable to respond to criticisms, vilify those who are criticizing you so that your audience will ignore them.
Anyway, let's get to one of Ziganto's latest posts. This one is again about feminism, and I'll quote it at great length, with her italics removed (emphases mine):
I generally ignore the irrelevant bint known as Miss Gloria Steinem, but Katie Couric interviewed her on Tuesday and thrust her back into the mock-worthy spotlight. Plus, I’m sick fed up with her and “feminists” like her. The emergence of conservative women to the forefront recently has made them particularly unbearable, as they strive to, in every repugnant way possible, diminish said women. [1] This is just the latest from one of them, Miss Gloria Steinem, who unfortunately resurfaced from whatever Birkenstock-clad, soy latte drinking ivory tower she was hiding in . . .
Firstly, good grief, Katie Couric. What an inane question: “Can you be a conservative feminist?” As if conservatives women are some odd, only woman-like creatures. Miss Steinem’s response? You can’t be a feminist if you oppose legal abortion. Can’t be one. That’s crimethink! [2] She caps it off with the utterly ridiculous statement that one in three women need an abortion. Now, it’s not the nebulous “choice,” it’s an actual need? Because it never really was about choice, was it? They strove to make abortion the default option.
Well, guess what, [3] Stepford Steinem Feminists? We don’t care if you don’t consider us a part of your cultish club. You see, [4] we have minds of our own. And, unlike you, we respect women and don’t think that they are too stupid to handle life on their own, nor do we think that women are perpetual victims who must be saved from things like “inconvenient” motherhood. We are also tired of your bastardizing the term feminist beyond any recognizable meaning. You are antithetical to feminism and can no longer claim that term as your own. We are taking it back. Not to use, as it’s unnecessary; [5] we know that we have equality already. But, only so that you can no longer use it as a way to promulgate lies in order to further an agenda harmful to all, but particularly to women.
Recently, another Stepford Feminist, Amanda Marcotte, claimed that Sarah Palin – and every other Pro-Life woman – thinks that women are stupid and doesn’t want to offer them a “choice.” She based this on an honest statement that Palin made at a Susan B. Anthony dinner, wherein she openly and honestly stated that the idea of an abortion had fleetingly crossed her mind. She then said this:
"So we went through some things a year ago that now lets me understand a woman’s, a girl’s temptation to maybe try to make it all go away if she has been influenced by society to believe that she’s not strong enough or smart enough or equipped enough or convenienced enough to make the choice to let the child live. I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process."
To the agenda tunnel-visioned like Marcotte, that meant that Palin thinks women are dum-dums and she then asserted this:
"I’ve seen everything from mild cases of morning sickness to months confined to bed in service of bringing a baby into the world, and these kinds of sacrifices should be freely chosen out of love instead of foisted on the unwilling. To suggest that all women are equipped to make these sacrifices at any point in time is to insult those who take on the burden because they want to, not because they have to."
[6] Oooh, the terrible sacrifice of morning sickness. Yeah, avoiding that is way more important than, you know, a life.
What’s insulting is that Marcotte and Steinem and other Stepford Feminists believe that women are incapable of being responsible for their own actions. That if they have the simple human emotions like fear of the unknown or self-doubt, then they should be relieved of that icky burden immediately because surely they can’t handle it. Motherhood is a punishment and a burden that only certain women can be expected to handle. Some aren’t “equipped” to do so, you see.
[7] They are also the ones who want to hide information from women, for fear that women are too stupid to handle the truth; they don’t even want women to see ultrasounds before aborting their children. They have so little respect for women, that [8] they deny the very existence of post-abortion syndrome. To them, it’s inconceivable that any woman would actually feel remorse or be racked with guilt, her entire life, after having an abortion. She got rid of that pesky, burdensome, “just a clump of cells”, inconvenience! If she doesn’t feel joyful relief, she can’t be a “real” feminist-y woman!I now comment on each of the numbered passages so we can see where Ziganto goes wrong. Each numbered comment below corresponds to a numbered passage above. I know, Ziganto probably has no interest in any of this, but for those of you who do, allow me to bolster your intellectual defenses. And by the way, nothing I'm about to say presupposes the falsity of Ziganto's pro-life position. Nothing. Those of you who are pro-life can also agree with the correctness of my criticisms.
- Note how Ziganto subjects Steinem to abuse. She says that Steinem hides in some "Birkenstock-clad, soy latte drinking ivory tower," where they might have taught Ziganto to write better sentences. (How many soy lattes can an ivory tower drink?) Why would she do that? Well, her readers are likely to agree with the characterization, but they are also more likely to disregard what Steinem has to say if she is characterized in that manner. Ziganto is simply following the play book conservatives have been using since Nixon first used it in the '60's. Ziganto's move here is a fallacious ad hominem.
- From Steinem's claim that some women need abortions, Ziganto infers that Steinem believes that abortion isn't about choice but should rather be the default option. This is a bit vague, but Ziganto clearly means to imply that Steinem thinks that women ought to be forced to have abortions. Now, perhaps some women believe that, and perhaps even Steinem believes that. But Ziganto's inference is a obviously a pile of shit. From the fact that someone needs something, it doesn't follow that they ought to be forced to choose that thing. I think Ziganto needs further education, but I also believe that that is her choice to make, and no one else's. Her readers aren't likely to notice Ziganto's sleazy move: they, like Ziganto, probably believe that Steinem is evil, so they won't cause trouble. But surely Steinem meant to say that some women ought not to complete their pregnancies because it is worse for them to do so, all things considered, than abort. You might disagree with that, but that doesn't sound evil. More on the issue of inconvenience later.
- Ziganto loves to use words in unexpected and perhaps even incompetent ways. This whole business about taking the word "feminism" back is an example. She claims that the people who call themselves feminists aren't actually feminists, and that people like Ziganto, i.e., people who are opposed to everything feminists traditionally stand for, are the real feminists. Is that clever, or merely idiotic? Anyway, she does it here again. The term "Stepford wife" was taken from a 1972 novel and was used to refer to women who were unusually submissive to their husbands, i.e., just the sort of thing a feminist would caution against. So applying the term "Stepford" to feminists is unexpected. She wants you to believe that feminists are mindless, I suppose. This dovetails with the conservative idea that liberals are mindless idiots (unlike conservatives, who have "minds of [their] own"). Her readers won't object, but Ziganto is obviously bullshitting at this point. There are stupid feminists, but there are some highly intelligent feminists also.
- Here, Ziganto claims that, unlike feminists, conservatives "respect women and don’t think that they are too stupid to handle life on their own, nor do we think that women are perpetual victims who must be saved from things like 'inconvenient' motherhood." It isn't at all clear that conservatives respect women, and I'll return to that point shortly. But here again she is simply mischaracterizing feminism. Feminism is about empowering women and achieving social, economic, political, and legal equality with men. Ziganto implies that feminists want to infantilize women and make their decisions for them. That is the very opposite of feminism. Ziganto will pound her little fists on the table and insist that she's right about this, but she is simply wrong. Either she doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about, or she does know but doesn't care because she is shoveling the bullshit. In either case, trusting in what she has to say about this is foolish. (Ziganto loves to write silly little screeds about the president's alleged incompetence, by the way, but she may be projecting.)
- Ziganto cannot know that women have equality already, because one can know only what is true, and it just ain't true that women have equality already. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report of 2007, the United States ranked 31st in gender equality; that result indicates the existence of significant gender inequality. I've got a scholarly report to back up my assertion: Ziganto has nothing. Except bullshit.
- Here, Ziganto mischaracterizes pro-choice arguments and therefore commits a straw man fallacy. Marcotte is right: the inconvenience of completing a pregnancy can be much more serious than enduring morning sickness. Ziganto appears to have a daughter; would she honestly claim that her daughter would at 12 be just as psychologically equipped to complete a pregnancy as Sarah Palin was to bring her running mate Trig into the world? And if so, wouldn't that indicate that Ziganto is out of her fucking mind? Either that, or again merely bullshitting. The costs of bringing a new being into the world are considerable, and Ziganto's continued attempts to downplay the sacrifices of women everywhere to complete their pregnancies merely to attack feminists is appalling. She is either out of touch with reality, or she is willing to ignore the sacrifices of real women everywhere who are "raising their families and learning through actual living," merely to score points against feminists and pro-choicers. Ziganto claims to know "the unwashed masses" a lot better feminists do, and yet Ziganto is the first to distort their experiences for her own selfish political purposes. What a bitch.
- Here, Ziganto claims that feminists "want to hide information from women, for fear that women are too stupid to handle the truth." Her evidence for this claim is that feminists "don’t even want women to see ultrasounds before aborting their children." There are two problems here. First, as usual, Ziganto's argument is a pile of shit. Ziganto offers no evidence for the claim that feminists think that women are "too stupid to handle the truth." She simply made it up. Why? Because feminists = liberals = members of the intellectual elite = people who allegedly have contempt for voters to whom the Republican Party panders at election time. Ziganto borrows from the same old Republican play book once again. In addition, feminist opposition to recent anti-abortion law is not motivated by a desire to keep information out of the hands of women; rather, it is motivated by a desire to keep government out of the doctor-patient relationship, as I have previously shown. Second, Ziganto's argument is hypocritical. It is people like Ziganto herself who do not trust women to make their own decisions and seek to control the information available to them. Check out this article by Dahlia Lithwick of Slate. According to Lithwick, "[W]hile the GOP position on abortion doesn't treat teenagers as grownups, it does show a growing inclination to treat grownup women as little girls. As important as the decision to end a pregnancy is, the matter of who gets to decide may be even more important. And that decision is increasingly being taken out of the hands of women and put into the hands of strangers." Go ahead, read the whole thing, if you have the guts.
- Here, Ziganto claims that feminists "deny the very existence of post-abortion syndrome. To them, it’s inconceivable that any woman would actually feel remorse or be racked with guilt, her entire life, after having an abortion." This is completely inaccurate. To deny the existence of post-abortion syndrome is to deny that women who have abortions are at significant risk of mental problems as a result of aborting. As I have previously argued, there is no scientific evidence that post-abortion syndrome, so defined, exists. I'm with the scientists on this one, not some hysterical bullshitting conservative blogger. But even if it doesn't exist, it doesn't follow that no one feels guilty about having an abortion. Surely many women experience post-abortion feelings of guilt. But that alone doesn't establish that the syndrome, so defined, exists. Notice what the evidence for the existence of the syndrome is: those who believe it exists claim that they know people who have experienced feelings of guilt after abortion. This is the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. I could just as easily argue that post-abortion syndrome does not exist because I actually know women who have had abortions and experienced no guilt feelings as a result. This is inconceivable to people like Ziganto, of course, since she and others like her are pro-life. But why would someone who is pro-choice feel guilty about having an abortion? Pro-lifers can only respond by insisting on the existence of a syndrome that does not in fact exist. The moral of this story is this: if you are pro-life, don't have an abortion; other than that, mind your own fucking business.
Posts
Nit-pick here:
ReplyDeleteI could just as easily argue that post-abortion syndrome does not exist because I actually know women who have had abortions and experienced no guilt feelings as a result.
Actually, these two argument are not symmetrical. If I want to say that something exists I only need one instance to prove my case. To prove something does not exist is much more difficult, as lack of evidence of its existence is not evidence of its lack of existence. For your argument to be equivalent to hers would require that she is claiming that ALL women who have abortions suffer from THE SYNDROME, but that is not, I believe, the claim.
Swing and a miss. In your bullet #2 your reason for completely dismissing Ziganto's point is that she's supposedly drawing an unwarranted inference about Steinem's motivations -- your exact words were "Ziganto's inference is a obviously a pile of shit." And then in the next bullet down you do exactly the same thing to Lori Ziganto: "She wants you to believe that feminists are mindless, I suppose."
ReplyDeleteYou say you "have been trained to evaluate arguments and evidence." Most of your bullets are classic examples of such training becoming injurious, as opposed to simply unhelpful, to the forensic process. A lot of the less experienced college kids make this mistake: They find some flimsy justification to hang a "fallacy" buzzword on the opposing argument, and then regard the argument as completely debunked and ready for dismissal.
Your bullet point #6 is a good example of this. "Straw man fallacy." What's fallacious about mocking a feminist for the implication that morning sickness is way more important than a life? It's not like Ziganto is going out on a limb here. Actually, if the feminist acknowledges a life is more important than morning sickness, or that the two consequences are merely equivalent, the feminist's argument becomes unworthy of mention and is utterly destroyed. So it's logically sound process-of-elimination: Start with three options, end up with one. I can see why Ziganto chose not to go through it step-by-step, it would be rather dry reading and it's not altogether necessary.
Once again, you arrive at this thing with this presupposition that Ziganto is somehow prohibited from forming an inference about what motivates the other side -- while yourself, and others, may do that with her at your leisure. Maybe this feels good to you if you have some burning need to dismiss what she has to say. But it might be productive to question, if what she has to say is so unworthy, what is the origin of this burning desperate need.
Why do conservatives vilify well-educated types like me, including those who, like me, have been trained to evaluate arguments and evidence? Because they do not want their arguments and evidence subjected to critical scrutiny.
If by "critical scrutiny" you mean "circular reasoning" (I'm sure you were educated on what this is), you're absolutely right. Your logic seems to say: I have decided feminism is about glorious, happy and harmless things. Ziganto has the nerve to suggest otherwise, and this proves she is wrong, because everybody who's anybody knows feminism is about what I say it's about. This argument of yours starts out in precisely the location where it ends up, therefore it doesn't go anywhere. It fulfills the burdens placed on it only because it doesn't accept any.
With all the Latin fallacy-buzzwords stripped out of it, your piecemeal cataloging seems to rely more on social stigma than on logic and reason: Lori Ziganto found a problem with feminism which is a golden calf, and so she is to be held up to ridicule. That's the ultimate in anti-logic. But it isn't your fault. You're the victim here, I think: If our institutions of higher education were as vigorous in fomenting diversity in political leanings, as they are in pursuing diversity in other matters -- oh yes that's a wild fantasy if ever there was one, I know -- perhaps their graduates would be better equipped to debate according to logic and reason rather than expressing theatrical indignation and whipping out the fuck-word for shock value.
I disagree with you, but it will take a while to explain why.
ReplyDeleteAccording to researchers (http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(08)00369-7/abstract), there is no scientific evidence in the literature that post-abortion syndrome exists.
What is post-abortion syndrome? It is the occurrence of psychological distress in women who have had elective abortion. But it's more than that: there must be a causal link between the abortion and the psychological distress, otherwise the alleged existence of the syndrome would not be a reason to restrict abortion, as pro-lifers allege. They believe that women who have abortions are at risk for psychological distress.
Now, in order for post-abortion syndrome to be an argument for restricting abortion, there must be a sufficiently high number of women who experience it. After all, routine medical procedures are associated with all kinds of rare negative consequences, but we don't label those consequences as syndromes and then restrict the procedures, given the rarity of those negative consequences. So anecdotal evidence won't establish the existence of post-abortion syndrome. "I know a woman who felt guilty about having an abortion" does not prove that post-abortion syndrome exists.
Now, my argument was that if we granted the legitimacy of such anecdotal evidence, I could argue that my anecdotal evidence shows that post-abortion syndrome does not exist. Why are the two arguments parallel? Ordinarily, lack of evidence for the existence of something does not prove that that thing does not exist. That's appeal to ignorance, which is an informal fallacy. But there are exceptions, and one exception concerns science. If scientists in a given field have done research and failed to turn up evidence that a given thing exists, then we are justified in inferring inductively that that thing does not exist. And that's what I was doing in the post you're commenting on. If mere anecdotal evidence were sufficient for showing that post-abortion syndrome exists, then mere anecdotal evidence would also be sufficient for showing that it does not, given what I said about that exception to appeal to ignorance.
But I just thought of another thing. If the reason women feel guilty about having abortions is that people like Ziganto are trying to convince them that abortion is wrong, then wouldn't that indicate that Ziganto has a moral obligation to be quiet and stop making those women feel guilty? Put it another way: if post-abortion syndrome exists (and it doesn't), then we could prevent it by convincing women that there isn't anything wrong with having an abortion! Now, Ziganto would say at this point that she can't do that, because ending fetal life is wrong. But that would show what her real reason is for being pro-life.
If scientists in a given field have done research and failed to turn up evidence that a given thing exists, then we are justified in inferring inductively that that thing does not exist.
ReplyDeleteDepends on the extent and quality of that research. I don't think you can claim that this research is at all definitive. Particularly when you are trying to prove or disprove a causal link between a poorly defined mental illness and a traumatic life event. The most recent systematic review of the subject (http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/o/a/Charles_2008_Contraception.pdf) only reports "A clear trend emerges from this systematic review: the highest quality studies had findings that were mostly neutral, suggesting few, if any, differences between women who had abortions and their respective comparison groups in terms of mental health sequelae." And is based on a mere 21 studies. In addition, this research is not being done on a well-defined syndrome, but, rather, on a broadly defined "mental health risk." As such, I don't think your exception holds for this subject.
They believe that women who have abortions are at risk for psychological distress.
From a public health perspective, there is no direct "causal link" inferred from "at risk." It is, strictly, a statement of correlation. For instance, women in poverty are at greater risk for depression than the general population. This does not mean that poverty causes depression. Granted, the research to date has ALSO failed to demonstrate a significant risk of mental health issues as a result of abortion...but even if it did, it would still be a long hard scientific road between that demonstration and proving a causal link (particularly since it would require -at least - randomly assigning women to have or not have an abortion).
So it appears that the crucial point of contention is this: was the review of the literature I cited definitive or not? I will concede that you might be right that it is not, and the authors of the study appear to agree with you. But insofar as actual scientific evidence is available in this area, it appears to suggest that post-abortion syndrome does not exist. The research certainly does not support the contention that post-abortion syndrome does exist.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that being at risk for something does not establish a causal link. But if you look at what the pro-lifers actually say, they believe that there really is a causal link, and they believe that that is an argument for restricting abortion. The authors claim that the science does not support such restrictions.
mkfreeberg, thank you for taking the time to read my post and respond to it. As a courtesy, I shall clean up my language in my response, since that is obviously important to you.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that my inference about Ziganto's motivation is unwarranted. Actually, if you read your Ziganto, you'll see that it's not. Ziganto routinely abuses those with whom she disagrees. In the very "posty" I'm criticizing, Ziganto says that feminists "were the useful idiots. Useful to the Left at one point, but no more – now that we all see you for what you are. Plain old idiots." Isn't calling the opposition "Stepford feminists" enough to communicate her real motivation?
A straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts and argument or position with the intention of making it less plausible and thus easier to "knock down," while claiming or implying that the original argument or position has been knocked down. Ziganto is clearly committing this fallacy in her reply to Marcotte. Ziganto implies that it is Marcotte's position that an abortion is justified even when the only inconvenience in completing it is morning sickness. That position is not only false, it's monstrous, and I'm pro-choice! But that's clearly not Marcotte's position. Marcotte mentions being confined to bed for months to complete a pregnancy; why didn't Ziganto mention that? If we interpret Marcotte charitably, it's clear that Ziganto has distorted her position. Why not interpret her charitably? Ziganto claims that the greatest thing a woman can do is complete a pregnancy, and yet she downplays the significant sacrifices that are borne by women who do exactly that. Ziganto's thoughts on this subject are simply incoherent. Now, why is pointing out this fallacy "injurious, as opposed to simply unhelpful?" If ziganto really does commit that fallacy, then her argument is debunked and worthy only of dismissal.
You write, "you arrive at this thing with this presupposition that Ziganto is somehow prohibited from forming an inference about what motivates the other side -- while yourself, and others, may do that with her at your leisure. Maybe this feels good to you if you have some burning need to dismiss what she has to say. But it might be productive to question, if what she has to say is so unworthy, what is the origin of this burning desperate need." That is an excellent question. Why spend so much time and energy debunking something so unworthy? Here is my answer. Many bloggers make all kinds of claims with no interest in the actual truth or falsity of what they claim; they make those claims merely to achieve a certain result, e.g., manipulate people into completing their pregnancies, or voting Republican, or what have you. I believe that this is seriously morally wrong. I do this in the hope that people who read Ziganto and other bloggers I criticize might read my criticisms and be innoculated against their manipulations as a result. If Ziganto would stick to the facts and give me a decent argument for her pro-life position, she would get no objection from me.
This reply is continued in the next comment.
mkfreeberg, your claim that I reason in a circle is completely false. Ziganto claims that feminism is harmful to women, and one of her arguments for this is that feminists deny that post-abortion syndrome exists. I clearly argue in my post that feminists are correct to deny its existence, so their denial does not expose women to the harm of nonexistent post-abortion syndrome. I am denying her premise, but my argument for that denial is not the denial of the premise itself. Do you know what arguing in a circle is? In addition, I do believe that feminism is about "glorious, happy, and harmless things" because I believe achieving gender equality is a good thing; that's what the version of feminism I accept stands for. Do you think that gender equality is bad? Are you ready to argue that the gender gap is a great thing and ought to be maintained? You go right ahead. Knock yourself out.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like Latin, an English term for the ad hominem fallacy is argument against the person. My source uses "ad hominem," so that's why I used that term. But I'm happy using English: my criticisms of Ziganto succeed no matter what language I use to articulate them.
You write that my numbered list relies "more on social stigma than on logic and reason." I'm not sure I know what that means, but you're going to have to do better. Precisely what is wrong with each numbered point? Are some of my premises false? If so, which ones, and why? Are my inferences bad? If so, which ones, and why?
I hold Ziganto's "posties" up to ridicule, because they are poorly researched and argued and show little regard for the truth. And I explain exactly what is wrong with them and why. There is nothing wrong with this. You imply that I could have been better equipped to debate according to logic and reason if I had not bothered with higher education. I am very familiar with this maneuver, as my conservative sibling has used it on me on countless occasions. With all due respect, you brought a knife to a gunfight, and you act as if you brought a tank.
Thanks again.
So it appears that the crucial point of contention is this: was the review of the literature I cited definitive or not?
ReplyDeleteNot the review, but the sciene. This is an area of science that is very difficult to do with a level of certainty that would warrant your logical exception. And the methods available make it unlikely that you would ever be able to disprove, completely, the existence of the phenomena. For instance, the autism-is-not-caused-by-vaccines research has much better data, but still falls short of being able to say with certainty that no child has ever had an adverse reaction to a vaccination that resulted in autism. That child may exist. What it can say is that this kind of event is so rare that we do not have an ability to measure an increased risk of autism at the group level...making it unlikely that vaccinations were an important factor for the vast majority of children with autism. Similarly, the trend reported in the systematic review you cite indicates that it is unlikely that a significant number of women who have abortions end up with significant mental illness as a result. As such the better use of this data to counter a claim that Post-abortion Syndrome is a significant cost of allowing women choice is to say that data do not support claims that Post-abortion Syndrome occurs in a significantly large number of women. Indeed,if it occurs at all, it is rare enough that it is hard to detect in the population with careful study.
Like I said, a nit-pick.
icastico, I think I am trying to say what you said in your last comment. You write, "[T]he better use of this data to counter a claim that Post-abortion Syndrome is a significant cost of allowing women choice is to say that data do not support claims that Post-abortion Syndrome occurs in a significantly large number of women." I agree with this, though the sloppiness of my writing may not have made that clear. I've been looking back at my post and my comments, and it's pretty sloppy.
ReplyDeleteOne could infer either of two claims from the research:
The stronger claim: the science shows that post-abortion syndrome does NOT exist.
The weaker claim: the science does NOT show that post-abortion syndrome exists.
I make the stronger claim; as I understand you, you're saying that the weaker claim is the only one we could be entitled to make at this point. I don't need the stronger claim for my objection to Ziganto to succeed; the weaker claim will do. So if I had it to do over again, I would have been more careful and made only the weaker claim.
This might have been only a nit-pick, but I think you're making an important point.