3 ms·

It is exactly meant as a way to discover denialism. Check the link at the end of the third paragraph for the paper that it comes from (or use [0]) if you aren’t

It is exactly meant as a way to discover denialism. Check the link at the end of the third paragraph for the paper that it comes from (or use [0]) if you aren’t content with the barebones version. [0] „Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?“, https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/19/1/2/463780 https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/19/1/2/463780

motohagiography 5y ago
> "The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so." This paper appears to recommend not to engaging with people whose opinions fit these tropes, and instead draw public attention to their divergent views and make an example of them. Essentially what we call cancel culture today. To the targets of such a tactic, what alternative recourse are they left with after being called a denialist? They can't all be funny enough to deflect it. I'm not sure these writers understand what happens when you organize to cause the faith and humour of people to fail them. On this, Doctorow seems unwise.
- _Microft 5y ago
  I’m not sure that I can follow. They talk about how to deal with denialists, i.e. people who intentionally mislead others about a topic, not people who happen to have a different opinion.

motohagiography 5y ago

> "The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so." This paper appears to recommend not to engaging with people whose opinions fit these tropes, and instead draw public attention to their divergent views and make an example of them. Essentially what we call cancel culture today. To the targets of such a tactic, what alternative recourse are they left with after being called a denialist? They can't all be funny enough to deflect it. I'm not sure these writers understand what happens when you organize to cause the faith and humour of people to fail them. On this, Doctorow seems unwise.

_Microft 5y ago
I’m not sure that I can follow. They talk about how to deal with denialists, i.e. people who intentionally mislead others about a topic, not people who happen to have a different opinion.