3 ms·

Right, it's completely ridiculous that I had to study for months to understand the transport properties of a nabotube with magnetic contacts, after having studi

Right, it's completely ridiculous that I had to study for months to understand the transport properties of a nabotube with magnetic contacts, after having studied for years to obtain the base knowledge to start that project. The prof should have been able to explain that to me when I was 8 years old. Obviously he doesn't understand his stuff and neither do I. Or could it maybe, just maybe, be that it is entirely reasonable that it takes years to have sufficient background understanding before an expert can convey the knowledge you need to study for another few months to actually understand something and also have an expert opinion on it?

timothybone 11y ago
Do you see anything redeeming about the quote? It seems problematic if something like this can be so political but be impervious to the logical debate an 8yo can engage in, no?
- Confusion 11y ago
  You imply that a logical debate is somehow 'better' than a political debate. That's a category mistake: those two are incomparable. They necessarily coexist, because they are about different things. Politics is about ethics. In this case: the ethical consequences of certain technical choices (under which I include a consideration like 'I will make less money'). (Expert) knowledge of the technical choice itself is mostly irrelevant for those parts of the debate. We can discuss the military merits of e.g. nuclear weapons until kingdom come, but if I'm opposed to them on humanitarian grounds, no amount of technical merits will convince me. As for the quote, it depends on context. In a context where expert knowledge is necessary to make useful contributions to the debate, there is nothing redeeming in the quote. It merely encourages people to be disrupt it. In the more general context where you ask a researcher to be able to explain his work: of course he should be able to dumb it down. But not for the purposes of subsequently engaging in fruitful discussion with him.
  - timothybone 11y ago
    Politics is about ethics? Yes, well, do you think an eight year old can look words up in the dictionary? Yes, of course you do. Well I argue that's all it takes, essentially, beyond that an eight year old needs some time, to answer some questions of their own, to be lectured at about the implications. But, an 8yo is perfectly capable of making the right choice, given context/access to information. And, I'll additionally argue that technical merits can convince someone opposed on humanitarian grounds, the two are not incomparable, we do these sorts of comparisons just fine in the real world. You are attempting to modularise the argument in a way I find unpalatable is all, our differences are likely surface deep.

timothybone 11y ago

Do you see anything redeeming about the quote? It seems problematic if something like this can be so political but be impervious to the logical debate an 8yo can engage in, no?

Confusion 11y ago
You imply that a logical debate is somehow 'better' than a political debate. That's a category mistake: those two are incomparable. They necessarily coexist, because they are about different things. Politics is about ethics. In this case: the ethical consequences of certain technical choices (under which I include a consideration like 'I will make less money'). (Expert) knowledge of the technical choice itself is mostly irrelevant for those parts of the debate. We can discuss the military merits of e.g. nuclear weapons until kingdom come, but if I'm opposed to them on humanitarian grounds, no amount of technical merits will convince me. As for the quote, it depends on context. In a context where expert knowledge is necessary to make useful contributions to the debate, there is nothing redeeming in the quote. It merely encourages people to be disrupt it. In the more general context where you ask a researcher to be able to explain his work: of course he should be able to dumb it down. But not for the purposes of subsequently engaging in fruitful discussion with him.
- timothybone 11y ago
  Politics is about ethics? Yes, well, do you think an eight year old can look words up in the dictionary? Yes, of course you do. Well I argue that's all it takes, essentially, beyond that an eight year old needs some time, to answer some questions of their own, to be lectured at about the implications. But, an 8yo is perfectly capable of making the right choice, given context/access to information. And, I'll additionally argue that technical merits can convince someone opposed on humanitarian grounds, the two are not incomparable, we do these sorts of comparisons just fine in the real world. You are attempting to modularise the argument in a way I find unpalatable is all, our differences are likely surface deep.