4 ms·

It's not pedantic, it's the only interpretation. Who says something does not alter its logical validity.

by hueving 10y ago

existencebox 10y ago
Do read the tail of my prior post. If only we were in a world where logical purism was possible you would be preaching to the choir, I promise you. But given a world with hilariously incomplete information, ESPECIALLY often when having to judge the merits of a decision, one must make a judgement that takes into account aspects outside of literal content. (If you're a CSer at all I would expect this is a very familiar concept from having to do anything from project estimation to architecture in the presence of unknowns) (Sister post Linkregister says it better than I did, frankly)
imron 10y ago
Perhaps in a world where everyone always deals in facts and everyone only tells the truth that statement is true, but that is not our world. People lie and distort facts for their own personal gain all the time. See for example, the scientists paid by the cigarette companies that produced data showing that smoking was safe. Knowing who said something (and knowing who is paying someone to say something) allows you to better calibrate your skepticism to see if what they are saying might be biased by their financial or other interests.
- hueving 10y ago
  You should be equally skeptical of any scientists stating things like that. A scientist has all kinds of motivations to publish novel research. The first scientist publishing that smoking causes cancer had as many motivations to lie as the scientist that published research claiming it didn't. The latter was direct financial support, the former was prestige and fame that would go directly into a tenure package and be considered during grant approval. If ad hominems become acceptable then you quickly open the door to worthless discussions around things like climate change because everyone can point out that the scientists behind the research are motivated to advance anthropogenic climate change or risk being ostracized. Evaluate the content, not the messenger. Anything else is lazy. If you are concerned the content is a lie, ask for the backing data, don't dismiss it.

It's not pedantic, it's the only interpretation. Who says something does not alter its logical validity.

by hueving 10y ago

It's not pedantic, it's the only interpretation. Who says something does not alter its logical validity.

Do read the tail of my prior post. If only we were in a world where logical purism was possible you would be preaching to the choir, I promise you. But given a world with hilariously incomplete information, ESPECIALLY often when having to judge the merits of a decision, one must make a judgement that takes into account aspects outside of literal content. (If you're a CSer at all I would expect this is a very familiar concept from having to do anything from project estimation to architecture in the presence of unknowns) (Sister post Linkregister says it better than I did, frankly)

imron 10y ago

Perhaps in a world where everyone always deals in facts and everyone only tells the truth that statement is true, but that is not our world. People lie and distort facts for their own personal gain all the time. See for example, the scientists paid by the cigarette companies that produced data showing that smoking was safe. Knowing who said something (and knowing who is paying someone to say something) allows you to better calibrate your skepticism to see if what they are saying might be biased by their financial or other interests.

hueving 10y ago
You should be equally skeptical of any scientists stating things like that. A scientist has all kinds of motivations to publish novel research. The first scientist publishing that smoking causes cancer had as many motivations to lie as the scientist that published research claiming it didn't. The latter was direct financial support, the former was prestige and fame that would go directly into a tenure package and be considered during grant approval. If ad hominems become acceptable then you quickly open the door to worthless discussions around things like climate change because everyone can point out that the scientists behind the research are motivated to advance anthropogenic climate change or risk being ostracized. Evaluate the content, not the messenger. Anything else is lazy. If you are concerned the content is a lie, ask for the backing data, don't dismiss it.