4 ms·
> Science is a bad example because the process of science can be quantified. We can argue about it but basically can quantify what is or isn’t a valid scientifi
by chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Science is a bad example because the process of science can be quantified. We can argue about it but basically can quantify what is or isn’t a valid scientific experiment.
The demarcation problem is essentially scientists disagreeing that we can sharply divide science from non-science.
The replication crisis is evidence that not all "science" is actually science.
> If one side argues in bad faith, they can just keep making shit up or doing things to undermine the discourse itself, like talk over someone else or bully them.
Silencing one side of a debate is also undermining the discourse.
> What we are seeing now is a shifting both of cultural norms and the infrastructure of our media environment which means that “free speech” no longer has some of the constraints and restrictions which enabled it to perform the truth-seeking function we desire it to.
Actually what we are seeing now is the democratization of free speech so that an oligarchic elite is no longer the only group who is able to make their voice heard. In this light it is unsurprising that the oligarchic elite wants restrictions on speech.
- adamsea 6y ago> Actually what we are seeing now is the democratization of free speech so that an oligarchic elite is no longer the only group who is able to make their voice heard. Exactly who do you think the major donors to the Trump campaign and the Republican Party are? Do you actually believe these election-fraud lies were spontaneous, as opposed to something people were whipped into believing by a propaganda campaign funded by the wealthy? Money in politics is a problem for both parties, not just Republicans, but, your argument is bullshit.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoThanks for the reply. Do you honestly think this is the best way to reach mutual understanding? I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with.
- adamsea 6y agoI am disagreeing with bullshit and my goal here isn’t mutual understanding but to call out bullshit for what it is. Case in point: Do you yourself believe Joe Biden won the election, and that there was not any meaningful “election fraud” or whatever? Yes or no. Anything other than a yes-or-no answer to my question is bullshit.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> Do you yourself believe Joe Biden won the election I refuse to answer on the principle that I don't submit to religious tests. You can call this bullshit if you like, you've said you're not here for mutual understanding and so I understand that you're not interested in my point of view. > there was not any meaningful “election fraud” or whatever? Of course there was meaningful election fraud. Any fraud is meaningful because it challenges the idea that free and fair elections are possible. > Anything other than a yes-or-no answer to my question is bullshit. Those were two questions, a yes-or-no answer wouldn't have even explained which one I was answering.
- adamsea 6y agoGet the fuck out of here with your bullshit.