5 ms·

these questions are basically copy pasta amongst the lab-leak crowd. that doesn't mean they aren't valid but I think it make sense to question the motivation in

by vidro3 4y ago

these questions are basically copy pasta amongst the lab-leak crowd. that doesn't mean they aren't valid but I think it make sense to question the motivation in this instance.

0x445442 4y ago
> but I think it make sense to question the motivation in this instance. By this logic it's equally valid to question the motivation of someone hand waving the questions away as "copy pasta" rather than just answering them. The Socratic method is a perfectly valid way to further an argument.
gfodor 4y ago
What’s the best way to raise these facts - are you supposed to just list them out since writing them in the form of a question is misleading or something?
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > are you supposed to just list them out since writing them in the form of a question is misleading or something? Yes. Yes! Several years ago I dived into books and seminars on effective communication. If I had to reduce it down to a few sentences, they would be: "Don't ask questions to express concerns. Learn how to express concerns directly in a non-threatening manner without asking questions. Ask questions only when genuinely trying to get information. Never ask leading questions. Don't ask questions to inform or educate." The Socratic approach is rarely an effective one. Proponents of the Socratic approach almost always blame the other party when it doesn't work (and it typically doesn't work). It applies to most forms of conversation, including code reviews.
- cloverich 4y ago
  It is considered a more genuine take, yes. When posed as a series of questions as such, it is meant in a sense to lead while initially posing as genuine curiosity. To level set, genuine and very general curiosity is maybe the most typical feature that holds this community together. IMHO A more genuine approach would be to list the key points and why they are compelling to one of that persuasion. Or alternatively, to more directly take a position: "I find the lab leak hypothesis compelling, and TFA/primary objection's don't explain <fact 1> or <observation 2>" etc.
- slg 4y ago
  Just my personal opinion here, I think this is an acceptable rhetorical device normally, but specifically in covid discussions this is an off-putting approach. "Just asking questions" is a common strategy among covid deniers and anti-vax folks who are also often pro-lab leak hypothesis. When I see a comment like the top most one in this thread, I can't tell if the author is actually coming to this discussion in good faith with a fact based approach or they are a nut job "just asking questions". Is the author meaning for the audience to infer actual confirmed facts or are they trying to imply guilt without any actual evidence? In this situation it is better to actually write out the facts with sources verifying them. Without that, the author risks being lumped in with the crazies.
  - logic_beats_pro 4y ago
    Yes, asking questions is now enough to get you labeled a conspiracy nut job. That toddler who continuously asks "why?" ten times in a row - conspiracy crank!!!
    - slg 4y ago
      >That toddler who continuously asks "why?" ten times in a row - conspiracy crank!!! Well if the toddler is asking questions about the lab leak hypothesis... I explicitly said it is a generally acceptable approach that doesn't work on this specific topic because of the reasons listed.
      - nradov 4y ago
        Please give us a complete list of the topics about which we are no longer allowed to ask questions.
        slg 4y ago
        Where did I say you can't ask questions? I said asking questions is a bad rhetorical device to use on this topic. OP isn't an inquisitive mind looking for answers to those questions. They are trying to convince us of a particular viewpoint due to the implied answers to those questions.

by vidro3 4y ago

these questions are basically copy pasta amongst the lab-leak crowd. that doesn't mean they aren't valid but I think it make sense to question the motivation in this instance.

0x445442 4y ago

> but I think it make sense to question the motivation in this instance. By this logic it's equally valid to question the motivation of someone hand waving the questions away as "copy pasta" rather than just answering them. The Socratic method is a perfectly valid way to further an argument.

gfodor 4y ago

What’s the best way to raise these facts - are you supposed to just list them out since writing them in the form of a question is misleading or something?

BeetleB 4y ago
> are you supposed to just list them out since writing them in the form of a question is misleading or something? Yes. Yes! Several years ago I dived into books and seminars on effective communication. If I had to reduce it down to a few sentences, they would be: "Don't ask questions to express concerns. Learn how to express concerns directly in a non-threatening manner without asking questions. Ask questions only when genuinely trying to get information. Never ask leading questions. Don't ask questions to inform or educate." The Socratic approach is rarely an effective one. Proponents of the Socratic approach almost always blame the other party when it doesn't work (and it typically doesn't work). It applies to most forms of conversation, including code reviews.
cloverich 4y ago
It is considered a more genuine take, yes. When posed as a series of questions as such, it is meant in a sense to lead while initially posing as genuine curiosity. To level set, genuine and very general curiosity is maybe the most typical feature that holds this community together. IMHO A more genuine approach would be to list the key points and why they are compelling to one of that persuasion. Or alternatively, to more directly take a position: "I find the lab leak hypothesis compelling, and TFA/primary objection's don't explain <fact 1> or <observation 2>" etc.
slg 4y ago
Just my personal opinion here, I think this is an acceptable rhetorical device normally, but specifically in covid discussions this is an off-putting approach. "Just asking questions" is a common strategy among covid deniers and anti-vax folks who are also often pro-lab leak hypothesis. When I see a comment like the top most one in this thread, I can't tell if the author is actually coming to this discussion in good faith with a fact based approach or they are a nut job "just asking questions". Is the author meaning for the audience to infer actual confirmed facts or are they trying to imply guilt without any actual evidence? In this situation it is better to actually write out the facts with sources verifying them. Without that, the author risks being lumped in with the crazies.
- logic_beats_pro 4y ago
  Yes, asking questions is now enough to get you labeled a conspiracy nut job. That toddler who continuously asks "why?" ten times in a row - conspiracy crank!!!
  - slg 4y ago
    >That toddler who continuously asks "why?" ten times in a row - conspiracy crank!!! Well if the toddler is asking questions about the lab leak hypothesis... I explicitly said it is a generally acceptable approach that doesn't work on this specific topic because of the reasons listed.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Please give us a complete list of the topics about which we are no longer allowed to ask questions.
      - slg 4y ago
        Where did I say you can't ask questions? I said asking questions is a bad rhetorical device to use on this topic. OP isn't an inquisitive mind looking for answers to those questions. They are trying to convince us of a particular viewpoint due to the implied answers to those questions.