Re: Aspartame Hypothesis, Intuition, Exageration
- To: email@example.com (Peter M. Ligotti)
- Subject: Re: Aspartame Hypothesis, Intuition, Exageration
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Christoph Reuss)
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:34:04 +0100
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-Message-ID: <"jXnrtB.A.BdB.-UIy2"@bakunix.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: email@example.com
Peter M. Ligotti wrote:
> I said that Aspartame is
> implicated, I never said it was proven in hundreds of
> thousands of cases worldwide. What we have here is called
> a hypothesis.
To quote your original posting:
>>> Aspartame has been clearly implicated
>>> in hundreds of thousands of disease cases and deaths worldwide.
Your formulation "has been clearly implicated in" doesn't sound like a
hypothesis, it sounds like an assertion, and the majority of your intended
audience (laymen) will understand it as an assertion. Appropriate
formulations would be "anecdotal evidence suggests that A. is implicated in",
or "A. is supposed to be implicated in".
> You certainly are entitled to your own opinion and intuition.
This is not about opinion and intuition. It's about trying to sell opinion
and intuition as facts, and using exaggerated estimates to impress laymen --
aren't the real numbers impressive enough ? Monsanto's PR tricks don't give
you the right to use PR tricks too.
My last $.02 in this thread...