4 ms·

At least as it concerns the EPA, this is wholly a problem in the US. In Europe, new chemicals need to be proven they are safe before they can be used. In the US

by jbob2000 9y ago

At least as it concerns the EPA, this is wholly a problem in the US. In Europe, new chemicals need to be proven they are safe before they can be used. In the US, new chemicals need to be proven they are bad before they are removed. It's totally backwards and in my opinion, is the direct cause for all of this bullshit. Aside from that, is there a general way to combat the four dog defense?

js8 9y ago
> Aside from that, is there a general way to combat the four dog defense? I always suggest to people that one way to discern a dishonest opinion (if you're not expert) is that they throw lots of contradictory (or at least weirdly independent) arguments at you. For example, an article denying global warming might argue that the Earth is not warming and that the warming is caused by the Sun. These are contradictory (if it is caused by Sun, it is warming). Or it is more subtle, they claim the data from e.g. NASA are fake but use the same data to argue a different point. In other words, dishonest debaters do not promote a coherent theory, and instead try to find as many holes in the opponents position as they can (which is always possible, no real-world knowledge is ever complete). But the real truth is always coherent, and that's how it can be recognized.
- jbob2000 9y ago
  Recognizing the defense is different than combating it. Or perhaps I misunderstood - are you saying that the way to combat it is to point out that they have no coherent theory?
  - restalis 9y ago
    Any conversation sits on the premise of quality interaction between the parties involved. This quality assumes competence and good will, each having to be over a certain minimal level depending on the subject discussed. When any of the involved parties determines that there is not or can not be enough competence or good will, then normally the discussion should either cease or switch to another level. (At most, you may explain your decision ...if you have that minimal level of respect towards any of the parties involved in discussion, that is.)

js8 9y ago

> Aside from that, is there a general way to combat the four dog defense? I always suggest to people that one way to discern a dishonest opinion (if you're not expert) is that they throw lots of contradictory (or at least weirdly independent) arguments at you. For example, an article denying global warming might argue that the Earth is not warming and that the warming is caused by the Sun. These are contradictory (if it is caused by Sun, it is warming). Or it is more subtle, they claim the data from e.g. NASA are fake but use the same data to argue a different point. In other words, dishonest debaters do not promote a coherent theory, and instead try to find as many holes in the opponents position as they can (which is always possible, no real-world knowledge is ever complete). But the real truth is always coherent, and that's how it can be recognized.

jbob2000 9y ago
Recognizing the defense is different than combating it. Or perhaps I misunderstood - are you saying that the way to combat it is to point out that they have no coherent theory?
- restalis 9y ago
  Any conversation sits on the premise of quality interaction between the parties involved. This quality assumes competence and good will, each having to be over a certain minimal level depending on the subject discussed. When any of the involved parties determines that there is not or can not be enough competence or good will, then normally the discussion should either cease or switch to another level. (At most, you may explain your decision ...if you have that minimal level of respect towards any of the parties involved in discussion, that is.)