3 ms·

How can you be persuaded by one side of a debate, particularly when you’re someone uneducated in the field? That’s a startling outcome to me. Is it because she

How can you be persuaded by one side of a debate, particularly when you’re someone uneducated in the field? That’s a startling outcome to me. Is it because she claims to hold the consensus view? Because it was well written? How do you conclude with being curious to understand “what is driving Levitt” rather than “what is Levitt’s reasoning?”

MyHypatia 6y ago
The author of this article presented documented evidence of Dr. Levitt's incorrect and speculative statements which he has not bothered to clarify. I am persuaded by the article because it presents the evidence clearly and backs it up with citations of that evidence.
troelsSteegin 6y ago
I was persuaded by the evidence cited by Harris in her editorial. I am categorically interested in Levitt's reasoning. Based on this article, his beliefs are miscallibrated, and that seems odd to me. A broader question is what should happen when a scientist voices a non scientific opinion? A famous scientist is more likely to get my attention than some ordinary scientist or some pundit. Maybe I am a sophisticated consumer, or may be not. Should I believe this person just because he or she is a scientist? Should the scientist issue a disclaimer - "this is my non scientific opinion"? I think a point Harris is making is that if one is going to opine while wearing the mantle of scientific authority - Nobel, Stanford prof - your arguments should be robust. Harris met that standard for me.
- kestonis 6y ago
  It is very easy - all interviews, opinions, public speeches by all scientists are under "non scientific opinion". Only scientific articles on reputable scientific journals are scientific opinion. All other media is not, because even if you link your speech to specific article and you speak with journalist you use dumbed down terminology. During process of converting scientific article into layman terms there is loss of information. Sometimes it is crucial information or it becomes source of misinterpretation.
kestonis 6y ago
Well it is very easy to check consensus view of science - it is published scientific articles. Why it is consensus view? Because it is peer reviewed and different journals have different reputation ranks. In scientific debate you always link the source - scientific article. If he cannot link sources, means there is no need to understand either “what is driving Levitt”, either “what is Levitt’s reasoning?”

MyHypatia 6y ago

The author of this article presented documented evidence of Dr. Levitt's incorrect and speculative statements which he has not bothered to clarify. I am persuaded by the article because it presents the evidence clearly and backs it up with citations of that evidence.

troelsSteegin 6y ago

I was persuaded by the evidence cited by Harris in her editorial. I am categorically interested in Levitt's reasoning. Based on this article, his beliefs are miscallibrated, and that seems odd to me. A broader question is what should happen when a scientist voices a non scientific opinion? A famous scientist is more likely to get my attention than some ordinary scientist or some pundit. Maybe I am a sophisticated consumer, or may be not. Should I believe this person just because he or she is a scientist? Should the scientist issue a disclaimer - "this is my non scientific opinion"? I think a point Harris is making is that if one is going to opine while wearing the mantle of scientific authority - Nobel, Stanford prof - your arguments should be robust. Harris met that standard for me.

kestonis 6y ago
It is very easy - all interviews, opinions, public speeches by all scientists are under "non scientific opinion". Only scientific articles on reputable scientific journals are scientific opinion. All other media is not, because even if you link your speech to specific article and you speak with journalist you use dumbed down terminology. During process of converting scientific article into layman terms there is loss of information. Sometimes it is crucial information or it becomes source of misinterpretation.

kestonis 6y ago

Well it is very easy to check consensus view of science - it is published scientific articles. Why it is consensus view? Because it is peer reviewed and different journals have different reputation ranks. In scientific debate you always link the source - scientific article. If he cannot link sources, means there is no need to understand either “what is driving Levitt”, either “what is Levitt’s reasoning?”