3 ms·

Please inform me where I've misinterpreted your phrasing. I am responding to you assuming you intend for best-faith discussion but may be misunderstanding the p

Please inform me where I've misinterpreted your phrasing. I am responding to you assuming you intend for best-faith discussion but may be misunderstanding the person you are responding to if you are concluding it is one of "simply" and "inconvenience", the second word you used again to describe the position. I'm not always neurotypical in my understanding so please clarify if I'm misunderstanding you: Is your position not that you believe the poster is creating an unfair framework of skepticism on how convenient evidence is?

kbenson 8y ago
> the second word you used again to describe the position. I didn't describe "the" position, or any single position. That seems to be the crux of misinterpreting my comment. I should have included it in the reply, but I was responding specifically to the idea, in semi-isolation, of "TBH I don't agree that one level of skepticism should be warranted for all things." and how we should be careful that we don't allow it to go to the other extreme, as (it has for some subset of people) in the example I gave. > Is your position not that you believe the poster is creating an unfair framework of skepticism on how convenient evidence is? My point, as it often is, since I find some themes cause me to comment over and over, is that both the extremes of a spectrum are often unappealing but in different ways, and a middle ground is often best. While applying the exact same level of scrutiny to all things isn't useful or efficient, neither is allowing political, economic and cultural narratives to the degree that we never accept results that are "inconvenient" in that they run counter to those narratives. The example given was one where it is inconvenient politically and economically to accept the results of man made climate change. Culturally, that could be results on the effects of marriage, or religion, or lack of religion. My statement should have been interpreted as a refinement on a specific point, not necessarily supporting or refuting anything absolutely.

kbenson 8y ago

> the second word you used again to describe the position. I didn't describe "the" position, or any single position. That seems to be the crux of misinterpreting my comment. I should have included it in the reply, but I was responding specifically to the idea, in semi-isolation, of "TBH I don't agree that one level of skepticism should be warranted for all things." and how we should be careful that we don't allow it to go to the other extreme, as (it has for some subset of people) in the example I gave. > Is your position not that you believe the poster is creating an unfair framework of skepticism on how convenient evidence is? My point, as it often is, since I find some themes cause me to comment over and over, is that both the extremes of a spectrum are often unappealing but in different ways, and a middle ground is often best. While applying the exact same level of scrutiny to all things isn't useful or efficient, neither is allowing political, economic and cultural narratives to the degree that we never accept results that are "inconvenient" in that they run counter to those narratives. The example given was one where it is inconvenient politically and economically to accept the results of man made climate change. Culturally, that could be results on the effects of marriage, or religion, or lack of religion. My statement should have been interpreted as a refinement on a specific point, not necessarily supporting or refuting anything absolutely.