3 ms·

That is a fallacy right there, discredit the source of the argument instead of the argument itself. People should have the right to discuss things openly, even

That is a fallacy right there, discredit the source of the argument instead of the argument itself. People should have the right to discuss things openly, even without credentials. They should not, however, actively act upon it causing actual harm. This is the realm of the specialists. As long as we have these distinctions, let people discuss.

sbuk 7y ago
Trouble is opinions can take on a life of their own. Not everyone is sensible enough to read opinions as just that. A lot of these articles are written with a tone of authority; espessially the ones from data scienctists. Discussion is fine, but bear in mind that its adding to a lot of unecessary noise.
- gchamonlive 7y ago
  You imply there is a necessary noise in the conversation. Who are we to define what credentials should be used to define what is noisy and what is not? I think the best way is to attack the argument itself, not where it is coming from. If the discourse become authoritative and biased, we shut it, disregard it pointing out the flaws. But we have to be careful not to be authoritative ourselves when we don't even give the chance for the writer to be wrong because he lacks the right credentials.
  - sbuk 7y ago
    Easy, in a pandemic like this only listen to medical professionals. Like I said, the time for amateur to examine and draw conclusions is after the pandemic is over.
lonelappde 7y ago
What's the point of pollution the conversation with useless ill informed fake-authoritative opinions that no one should act upon? This isn't "I tried Python and had a lot of problems with dynamic types", it's uninformed specualtion on an arbitrary sample of information the they haven't trained to understand.
- gchamonlive 7y ago
  then use that against the argument. Break it for what it is not worth, but don't attack the person itself and the right to free speech. Where would you draw the line for defining what is polluting the conversation and what is not? Can you see the danger there? This trend of checking someones credentials before hearing the argument can become elitist real fast. Careful to not become the censorship we condemn
pnako 7y ago
I guess I should have articulated an argument instead of venting and using sarcasm. Basically, I've seen my share of unqualified people (not that I'm qualified myself) building ridiculous models of exponential growth and predicting catastrophes, commenting on drug research protocols without necessarily understanding the details and so on.

sbuk 7y ago

Trouble is opinions can take on a life of their own. Not everyone is sensible enough to read opinions as just that. A lot of these articles are written with a tone of authority; espessially the ones from data scienctists. Discussion is fine, but bear in mind that its adding to a lot of unecessary noise.

gchamonlive 7y ago
You imply there is a necessary noise in the conversation. Who are we to define what credentials should be used to define what is noisy and what is not? I think the best way is to attack the argument itself, not where it is coming from. If the discourse become authoritative and biased, we shut it, disregard it pointing out the flaws. But we have to be careful not to be authoritative ourselves when we don't even give the chance for the writer to be wrong because he lacks the right credentials.
- sbuk 7y ago
  Easy, in a pandemic like this only listen to medical professionals. Like I said, the time for amateur to examine and draw conclusions is after the pandemic is over.

lonelappde 7y ago

What's the point of pollution the conversation with useless ill informed fake-authoritative opinions that no one should act upon? This isn't "I tried Python and had a lot of problems with dynamic types", it's uninformed specualtion on an arbitrary sample of information the they haven't trained to understand.

gchamonlive 7y ago
then use that against the argument. Break it for what it is not worth, but don't attack the person itself and the right to free speech. Where would you draw the line for defining what is polluting the conversation and what is not? Can you see the danger there? This trend of checking someones credentials before hearing the argument can become elitist real fast. Careful to not become the censorship we condemn

pnako 7y ago

I guess I should have articulated an argument instead of venting and using sarcasm. Basically, I've seen my share of unqualified people (not that I'm qualified myself) building ridiculous models of exponential growth and predicting catastrophes, commenting on drug research protocols without necessarily understanding the details and so on.