4 ms·

I'm not sure your single variable alternative explanation of this effect warrants such a dismissive tone to the hypothesis in the article. Using such rhetoric

I'm not sure your single variable alternative explanation of this effect warrants such a dismissive tone to the hypothesis in the article. Using such rhetoric is Truthy, by being plausible and socially and rhetorically effective without being backed up by any research or even data. Claiming you have greater expertise through attempted ridicule of the original is not a valid argument. Such a rhetorical tactic likely has a fallacy named after it. (Any debaters here cars to chime in? ) What are your justifications for your beliefs, and how are they superior to those in the article?

daveloyall 10y ago
(I can spare a couple down votes...) What part of the internet do YOU come from, triplesec? I've seen your kind before... You nitpick the form of some comment, but not the content... And along the way, you entirely misrepresent the original content. It appears to me that amadsen is speaking plainly and asking if the study took maturation into account. That's a perfectly good question!
- triplesec 10y ago
  Ad hominem is not a useful or contentful response. Again, an attempt at ridicule over engaging with the ideas and content itself. I made a perfectly polite but strong objection on style and justification grounds. Your second half warrants response. The content of his response is irrelevant to the important point I raise, which unlike your ad hominem is about ensuring better more rational discussion: I think he's making a poor representation and skewing the average response with underhand rhetoric. 'Uh yeah' starts something less than useful. Using emotion, not reason. HN is about polite reasonable discourse. I have no _strong_ opinion YET (edit for emphasis, I'm thinking about this) on the actual literal content of the arguments at this juncture, though that may change as I read others' justifications, theories, data and references. Edit: My response is important for the content, as rhetorical tricks impact reception and evaluation of content. I object to emotive skews.
  - striking 10y ago
    > jock-ish status games [in reference to 'Uh yeah'] If that's not impolite, (or for that matter, not an "emotive skew"), I don't know what is. > I have no opinion on the actual content of the arguments You directly admit that your comments are off-topic and unhelpful. Well, at least you're honest.
    - triplesec 10y ago
      Edit: please cease continuing with ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the method and content. You are pulling this way away from my valid objection, which is Not offtopic: descriptive and the manner of fair debate and good epistemology is crucial in all scientific discussions. (Regretted word jockish edited , even if warranted) We really don't need any flame wars.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - striking 10y ago
        Continuing with ad hominem attacks? Please don't imply I'm attacking your character. I'm attacking your arguments and no more. I'm sure you're a perfectly acceptable person. And I disagree with more than just "jockish"; I quoted it because I thought it was the salient part of your comment. You're making a comment about the poster rather than his arguments. And that bothers me.
        triplesec 10y ago
        Please stop. I like PG's How To Argue, and this is not worth the time. You are taking too much time to police what isn't needed, cherrypicking of my words to whiteknight these guys. Let them object if they wish. And we'll have a civil discussion. I'm making arguments about substantive matters that impact on the reception of the OP's argument. I say nothing about their character, and concentrate on their arguments. Method matters. But right now I'm more interested in headway on the original topic. Let's do that and go there instead?
sctb 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790032 and marked it off-topic.
- triplesec 10y ago
  Ok, it shouldn't have turned in the direction it did, but thanks. I'm going to iterate to phrasing more carefully.
- DanBC 10y ago
  Why did you do that? HN tries hard to avoid middle-brow dismissal, which GP was.
  - triplesec 10y ago
    I agree, but I can see how HN may want to keep the conversation as it turned out below away from disrupting the thread; I think the thread did get derailed. For anyone confused here's the comment the GGP was detached from: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790032

daveloyall 10y ago

(I can spare a couple down votes...) What part of the internet do YOU come from, triplesec? I've seen your kind before... You nitpick the form of some comment, but not the content... And along the way, you entirely misrepresent the original content. It appears to me that amadsen is speaking plainly and asking if the study took maturation into account. That's a perfectly good question!

triplesec 10y ago
Ad hominem is not a useful or contentful response. Again, an attempt at ridicule over engaging with the ideas and content itself. I made a perfectly polite but strong objection on style and justification grounds. Your second half warrants response. The content of his response is irrelevant to the important point I raise, which unlike your ad hominem is about ensuring better more rational discussion: I think he's making a poor representation and skewing the average response with underhand rhetoric. 'Uh yeah' starts something less than useful. Using emotion, not reason. HN is about polite reasonable discourse. I have no _strong_ opinion YET (edit for emphasis, I'm thinking about this) on the actual literal content of the arguments at this juncture, though that may change as I read others' justifications, theories, data and references. Edit: My response is important for the content, as rhetorical tricks impact reception and evaluation of content. I object to emotive skews.
- striking 10y ago
  > jock-ish status games [in reference to 'Uh yeah'] If that's not impolite, (or for that matter, not an "emotive skew"), I don't know what is. > I have no opinion on the actual content of the arguments You directly admit that your comments are off-topic and unhelpful. Well, at least you're honest.
  - triplesec 10y ago
    Edit: please cease continuing with ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the method and content. You are pulling this way away from my valid objection, which is Not offtopic: descriptive and the manner of fair debate and good epistemology is crucial in all scientific discussions. (Regretted word jockish edited , even if warranted) We really don't need any flame wars.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - striking 10y ago
      Continuing with ad hominem attacks? Please don't imply I'm attacking your character. I'm attacking your arguments and no more. I'm sure you're a perfectly acceptable person. And I disagree with more than just "jockish"; I quoted it because I thought it was the salient part of your comment. You're making a comment about the poster rather than his arguments. And that bothers me.
      - triplesec 10y ago
        Please stop. I like PG's How To Argue, and this is not worth the time. You are taking too much time to police what isn't needed, cherrypicking of my words to whiteknight these guys. Let them object if they wish. And we'll have a civil discussion. I'm making arguments about substantive matters that impact on the reception of the OP's argument. I say nothing about their character, and concentrate on their arguments. Method matters. But right now I'm more interested in headway on the original topic. Let's do that and go there instead?

sctb 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790032 and marked it off-topic.

triplesec 10y ago
Ok, it shouldn't have turned in the direction it did, but thanks. I'm going to iterate to phrasing more carefully.
DanBC 10y ago
Why did you do that? HN tries hard to avoid middle-brow dismissal, which GP was.
- triplesec 10y ago
  I agree, but I can see how HN may want to keep the conversation as it turned out below away from disrupting the thread; I think the thread did get derailed. For anyone confused here's the comment the GGP was detached from: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790032