4 ms·

> 10 million people on one side 10 people on the other. 10 million who are not involved in the slightest and would not even know about this without seeing it i

> 10 million people on one side 10 people on the other. 10 million who are not involved in the slightest and would not even know about this without seeing it in the news. So your argument is, since x billion (not just million) people don't know something we can already conclude it doesn't exist. I'm attacking your numbers argument, nothing else. And your "someone will always disagree" is completely out of place - it's true about about something not present in this story at all. So by throwing in some random true fact you made your 2nd argument. Last, the comparison with "climate deniers" (others in this thread) is bogus too: The difference is that topic was WAS discussed at great length - and the "deniers" did get heard. So yes, after hearing all sides there is no need to give everyone equal time. In this story however we hear about it for the very first time, and while I certainly don't expect to give them equal time for their views, and personally would not bother one iota, it makes me wonder: What happens when we hear such stories and always automatically assume they are wrong? For me it's not about this one single story, but how we handle such stories in general. Always throwing the "majority opinion" view around seems misguided. I'm not much concerned about this particular case, but about the generalities thrown around here like the the "10 million people" argument above. Just because those people are sick doesn't make your justification/reasoning correct - somebody else being wrong doesn't make you right automatically!

notahacker 10y ago
There's a whole bunch of different heuristics we can use to make a judgement on this one. "Most people don't believe this" is a pretty poor standard for evidence. "No logical reason for these particular people to be stalked has been identified, the only people that believe this activity is actually taking place appear to be those claiming to actually suffer from it; experts in mental illness who have studied some of the individuals claiming to experience the phenomena note that they are exhibiting well-established symptoms of mental illnesses" is a pretty good standard of evidence. Unlike most almost-certainly-incorrect beliefs, it also appears that those who come to adopt this one genuinely suffer from it, so I'm not even convinced the assumption that we should consider it pretty plausible and encourage both sides of the argument to publicise their case would be a benign one. (A corollary of this is that even in the staggeringly unlikely event that independent evidence can be found that some shadowy group actually is attempting to unsettle a particular individual by sending out minions to gas stations to mimic their actions, they'd probably feel even more intimidated for receiving that confirmation)

notahacker 10y ago

There's a whole bunch of different heuristics we can use to make a judgement on this one. "Most people don't believe this" is a pretty poor standard for evidence. "No logical reason for these particular people to be stalked has been identified, the only people that believe this activity is actually taking place appear to be those claiming to actually suffer from it; experts in mental illness who have studied some of the individuals claiming to experience the phenomena note that they are exhibiting well-established symptoms of mental illnesses" is a pretty good standard of evidence. Unlike most almost-certainly-incorrect beliefs, it also appears that those who come to adopt this one genuinely suffer from it, so I'm not even convinced the assumption that we should consider it pretty plausible and encourage both sides of the argument to publicise their case would be a benign one. (A corollary of this is that even in the staggeringly unlikely event that independent evidence can be found that some shadowy group actually is attempting to unsettle a particular individual by sending out minions to gas stations to mimic their actions, they'd probably feel even more intimidated for receiving that confirmation)