David Odland, in his letter to the editor (“Writer misled readers on study,” March 30), complains that editorial staff allow letters to reach print that fail to prove the conclusions they argue for.
While I agree that these letters pose danger to those of us who lack critical-thinking skills, I still believe there is great value in seeing these letters in print.
The errant letter he refers to (“What if masks only protect us by 2 percent?” March 22, by Gwynneth Kelley) contained an obvious mathematical error, but this was quickly pointed out in an excellent letter (“Writer completely distorts CDC study,” March 24, by Terry Connors).
This is how it should work. Those of us familiar with the requirements of reason need to help others by pointing out where their arguments fall short. But this cannot happen unless editorial staff publishes letters that contain poor arguments.
To solve the political and cultural problems that we, as a nation, face, this sort of dialogue is far more important than any benefits derived from censoring items in the letters column.