I don't really see it though. The article seems pretty clear on what kind of discussion they think is unproductive. One can argue whether text is data, but it s

I don't really see it though. The article seems pretty clear on what kind of discussion they think is unproductive. One can argue whether text is data, but it still has structure and meaning. When they say "ill-advised citation" or "logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify" that is what they are arguing. You own argument seem much more a moral one though. For one it doesn't even say what you said it says. For example: > accusing HN commenters [...] abusing unreliable tools like "data" and "logic" to counter "humane arguments" Actually says: > humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational It doesn't say that human arguments are countered with data or logic. That statement is never made. It doesn't imply it either. If it was to be read as implied it would still be logic and data used in incorrect ways. So it seems hard to favor data if you don't even look at the text at hand. Instead you seem to pretty much make a "slippery slope" argument, which if not outright is at least close to a moral argument. That questioning data dismisses the role of data, and that this leads to anti-intellectualism. Therefor we shouldn't question data in this way. That is, they are morally wrong to do it. Instead of the less moral argument that misuse of data is what leads to people questioning it. You also back this up with all kinds of appeal to emotion from it being "a smug, flowery dismissal" to "basically saying I wish these annoying nerds would stop thinking". I don't see that reading as factual. If anything the article seems to argue that people should start thinking. One could argue that their reasoning for why people isn't thinking is incorrect, but that doesn't change the actual meaning in relation to thinking (that they think people should be thinking more). So again you are not arguing the text, but your moral conclusion from the text. The more critical reading of your comments would simply be that you don't see the problem with data and therefor you don't understand the article's concerns nor the problems with your own comments. Which is pretty much what the article argues people don't do after observing this very forum. I have a hard time even reconciling your one sentence in this comment. Because you are essentially saying that you rather have flawed data than a humane or morally superior argument. But that again seems very much in itself like a morally superior argument. It rests on that data is always better than a humane argument. Even when incorrect, and potentially more incorrect, than a humane argument.