3 ms·
I guess it comes down to how you approach it. I had no reason to expect a statement trivially-falsifiable when held to the standard of universal truth was mean
by roc 17y ago
I guess it comes down to how you approach it.
I had no reason to expect a statement trivially-falsifiable when held to the standard of universal truth was meant to be taken as such. So I assumed there was a particular context relevant to the assertion and was unsurprised to find that there was.
If you approach article titles expecting to find absolute logical precision, I'd imagine this is but one of many 'wrong' titles.
- scott_s 17y agoI knew the title couldn't mean what it literally meant. But I find that style of title if not "wrong" at least "bad." That the literal interpretation is obviously wrong is the intent; it lures you into reading the post to find out what exactly the author means by it. This is in opposition to a good title, which succinctly states the main point and lures you into reading by being an interesting idea. I consider this technique linkbaiting.
- roc 17y agoI absolutely agree with that. On the axis of truth vs marketing, this is definitely out toward marketing. I don't think this is quite as bad as linkbaiting, but it's surely kin. I guess I just misunderstood what you'd meant by 'wrong'.
- scott_s 17y agoThat's why I said "wrong," to make sure it was clear I was using someone else's word. I probably would have said "misleading." And that was my first thought after reading through enough of the post to understand what he was really saying. I don't like posts where someone makes a provocative statement, then jumps through hoops to redefine words or attach different semantics to make it fit.