4 ms·

Both of the passages you quoted read as coherent and even convincing. Sure, terms like "epistemic" or "unconscientiousness" may be a bit unfamiliar, but they h

by cowpig 6y ago

Both of the passages you quoted read as coherent and even convincing. Sure, terms like "epistemic" or "unconscientiousness" may be a bit unfamiliar, but they have specific meanings that are clear in the passage, and are used to make a salient argument. The use of jargon does not equate to obfuscation! For example, these two statements are very different: "Making the world a better place through canonical data models to communicate between endpoints." (Silicon Valley season 1 episode 6) "And then there are other aspects of complexity that come into programming with any of these more commonly used statically typed languages, which have to do with the complexity in the language space." (Rich Hickey talk) If you aren't familiar with the jargon, they're both unintelligible, but if you are, one sounds silly and the other does not.

mistermann 6y ago
> Both of the passages you quoted read as coherent and even convincing. They sure do - that's the problem! The author shows little sign of being concerned with the degree to which they are true (which considering he's representing skills in epistemology, seems like a bit of a shortcoming). >> These ‘fields’ traffic in bizarre claims with scientific pretensions. On a surface level, these claims seem to be scientific and usually appear to comment on the same kind of things that science does. However, upon closer inspection, pseudoscience is revealed to be bullshit: it is indifferent to the truth. Setting the stage by choosing "astrology, homeopathy, flat-Earthism, anti-vaxx" at the start of the article seems like a bit of the very "straw man, false dilemma and cherry-picking" the author complains about, since they go on to discuss pseudoscience in general. I suspect "These 'fields'" is hinting (without explicitly saying) at conspiracy theories in general, going on to say "...upon closer inspection, pseudoscience is(!) [implicitly: without exception] revealed to be bullshit". (An example of using persuasive rhetoric to misinform readers.) > An illustrative example is Sam Harris’s book The Moral Landscape (2010), in which straw men are lined up due to Harris’s failure to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that he criticises. The author seems to not considered the possibility that the same applies to him (he who is without sin...). And then wraps it up with this beauty of a paragraph: > While pseudoscience can perhaps be counteracted by science education, the cure for pseudophilosophy is not science education but philosophical education. More specifically, it is a matter of developing the kind of basic critical thinking skills that are taught to undergraduates in philosophy. This doesn’t need to be anything fancy [Oh? Are you sure?]. Students should be taught things like learning to distinguish in a disciplined way between central philosophical concepts such as belief, truth, rationality and knowledge. They should be aware of the way ambiguities can be exploited by equivocating arguments, and become adept at how to spot other fallacies such as ad hominem and straw man. With these fundamental tools in hand, there would be a good deal less pseudophilosophy going around. Perhaps we should add psychology and mindfulness (self-awareness) to this list. > The use of jargon does not equate to obfuscation! Agreed.

by cowpig 6y ago

mistermann 6y ago

> Both of the passages you quoted read as coherent and even convincing. They sure do - that's the problem! The author shows little sign of being concerned with the degree to which they are true (which considering he's representing skills in epistemology, seems like a bit of a shortcoming). >> These ‘fields’ traffic in bizarre claims with scientific pretensions. On a surface level, these claims seem to be scientific and usually appear to comment on the same kind of things that science does. However, upon closer inspection, pseudoscience is revealed to be bullshit: it is indifferent to the truth. Setting the stage by choosing "astrology, homeopathy, flat-Earthism, anti-vaxx" at the start of the article seems like a bit of the very "straw man, false dilemma and cherry-picking" the author complains about, since they go on to discuss pseudoscience in general. I suspect "These 'fields'" is hinting (without explicitly saying) at conspiracy theories in general, going on to say "...upon closer inspection, pseudoscience is(!) [implicitly: without exception] revealed to be bullshit". (An example of using persuasive rhetoric to misinform readers.) > An illustrative example is Sam Harris’s book The Moral Landscape (2010), in which straw men are lined up due to Harris’s failure to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that he criticises. The author seems to not considered the possibility that the same applies to him (he who is without sin...). And then wraps it up with this beauty of a paragraph: > While pseudoscience can perhaps be counteracted by science education, the cure for pseudophilosophy is not science education but philosophical education. More specifically, it is a matter of developing the kind of basic critical thinking skills that are taught to undergraduates in philosophy. This doesn’t need to be anything fancy [Oh? Are you sure?]. Students should be taught things like learning to distinguish in a disciplined way between central philosophical concepts such as belief, truth, rationality and knowledge. They should be aware of the way ambiguities can be exploited by equivocating arguments, and become adept at how to spot other fallacies such as ad hominem and straw man. With these fundamental tools in hand, there would be a good deal less pseudophilosophy going around. Perhaps we should add psychology and mindfulness (self-awareness) to this list. > The use of jargon does not equate to obfuscation! Agreed.