5 ms·

ok, but I think it's a valid opinion to express extreme aversion for Thomas Friedman.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Arguing that the whole list is less credible because Friedman's on it? I mean, it's fine if you want to maintain your own epistemic closure, but expecting everyone else to agree? And even you should read him, if for no other reason to be sure you understand what you're disagreeing with. Then, once you can actually state his position in a way that he would recognize as accurate, then disagree as much as you please.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  "epistemic closure" is a phrase that bored philosophy majors use to try and disparage their opponents on political grounds. I should know, I'm a bored philosophy major. now would you kindly speak to me like a real person?
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Well, I don't know. Were you speaking to us like we're real people when you dismissed Friedman as automatically worthy of extreme aversion, without even bothering to give any explanation or justification? Were you even speaking of Friedman like a real person? I submit that you were not. You were in fact speaking like a person whose mind is made up, and who thinks that everyone else's mind should also be made up, and there's nothing that's even worth talking about or considering. I'm not a philosophy major, bored or otherwise, but that's rather close to my understanding of "epistemic closure". (Ah, however, actually looking up the term shows that it means something rather different. My bad.)
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      I said "it's a valid opinion to express an extreme aversion to Friedman". that's exactly what I meant. it's an opinion. it's not a claim of any kind of universal truth. it's a statement of taste and therefore does not require justification. I didn't anywhere say "automatically worthy of...". You said that. You're trying to put words in my mouth, which is a discredited rhetorical trick. you are really getting carried away with word games. knock it off.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        > you are really getting carried away with word games. knock it off. No, what I was really doing was mentally combining you with the OP, cylinder. But you said "valid opinion"; OK, I can go there. I think (at least partially) discrediting the whole list because of Friedman is still a bit much, but I think you were actually agreeing with that, when you said "ok" in the post that is five parents up from this one. But now you're being rather careless with accusations toward me - that I'm playing word games. Maybe you should knock that off, too.
        ryanx435 10y ago
        Gonna have to agree with the other guy: AnimalMuppet, you're kinda being purposefully obstinept here
- CalChris 10y ago
  Saying the list took a dive when it came to Friedman is colorful writing and not epistemic closure. It did take a dive. This is 2016 and Friedman has been around for ever. He's been insistently wrong over and over again. The Iraq War. He was so wrong about that he even has a measurement unit named after him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_Unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_Unit He's on TV, he's in the NYTimes, he's on NPR, he has a book. Am I being closed minded if I say enough already? What has he ever been right about? What continued claim does he have on the national discourse?
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    I could just as easily say the same about stoicism or Carl Rogers being on the list. I mean, no, I'm not going to read Friedman's book. No, I'm not a fan. No, I'm not defending his positions. It's fine that you don't agree with Friedman. I don't agree with stoicism, either. But deciding that the list "took a dive" just because he has a book on it? Yes, you're being closed minded.
    - CalChris 10y ago
      It's really not so much that I don't agree with him and to be sure, I don't agree with him. It's more like, really, do I have to listen/read/hear about Friedman one more time? Aren't there any new voices? Dunno where you live but they still play Car Talk on KQED on Saturday mornings and one of the guys is dead. MoDo has been awesome but she should move on as well. David Brooks same.

Arguing that the whole list is less credible because Friedman's on it? I mean, it's fine if you want to maintain your own epistemic closure, but expecting everyone else to agree? And even you should read him, if for no other reason to be sure you understand what you're disagreeing with. Then, once you can actually state his position in a way that he would recognize as accurate, then disagree as much as you please.

metaphorm 10y ago
"epistemic closure" is a phrase that bored philosophy majors use to try and disparage their opponents on political grounds. I should know, I'm a bored philosophy major. now would you kindly speak to me like a real person?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Well, I don't know. Were you speaking to us like we're real people when you dismissed Friedman as automatically worthy of extreme aversion, without even bothering to give any explanation or justification? Were you even speaking of Friedman like a real person? I submit that you were not. You were in fact speaking like a person whose mind is made up, and who thinks that everyone else's mind should also be made up, and there's nothing that's even worth talking about or considering. I'm not a philosophy major, bored or otherwise, but that's rather close to my understanding of "epistemic closure". (Ah, however, actually looking up the term shows that it means something rather different. My bad.)
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    I said "it's a valid opinion to express an extreme aversion to Friedman". that's exactly what I meant. it's an opinion. it's not a claim of any kind of universal truth. it's a statement of taste and therefore does not require justification. I didn't anywhere say "automatically worthy of...". You said that. You're trying to put words in my mouth, which is a discredited rhetorical trick. you are really getting carried away with word games. knock it off.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      > you are really getting carried away with word games. knock it off. No, what I was really doing was mentally combining you with the OP, cylinder. But you said "valid opinion"; OK, I can go there. I think (at least partially) discrediting the whole list because of Friedman is still a bit much, but I think you were actually agreeing with that, when you said "ok" in the post that is five parents up from this one. But now you're being rather careless with accusations toward me - that I'm playing word games. Maybe you should knock that off, too.
      - ryanx435 10y ago
        Gonna have to agree with the other guy: AnimalMuppet, you're kinda being purposefully obstinept here
CalChris 10y ago
Saying the list took a dive when it came to Friedman is colorful writing and not epistemic closure. It did take a dive. This is 2016 and Friedman has been around for ever. He's been insistently wrong over and over again. The Iraq War. He was so wrong about that he even has a measurement unit named after him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_Unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_Unit He's on TV, he's in the NYTimes, he's on NPR, he has a book. Am I being closed minded if I say enough already? What has he ever been right about? What continued claim does he have on the national discourse?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I could just as easily say the same about stoicism or Carl Rogers being on the list. I mean, no, I'm not going to read Friedman's book. No, I'm not a fan. No, I'm not defending his positions. It's fine that you don't agree with Friedman. I don't agree with stoicism, either. But deciding that the list "took a dive" just because he has a book on it? Yes, you're being closed minded.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    It's really not so much that I don't agree with him and to be sure, I don't agree with him. It's more like, really, do I have to listen/read/hear about Friedman one more time? Aren't there any new voices? Dunno where you live but they still play Car Talk on KQED on Saturday mornings and one of the guys is dead. MoDo has been awesome but she should move on as well. David Brooks same.