2 ms·

When you read 'Nobody does that', it is a shortening of "Nobody [credible] does that[, until a revolutionary argument is provided]". Random opinions are collec

by mdp2021 4y ago

When you read 'Nobody does that', it is a shortening of "Nobody [credible] does that[, until a revolutionary argument is provided]". Random opinions are collected from the bar, and that is a place where you go voluntarily. Of course you will always find people defending any possible position. Frequently, historically, it had not even been a rational stance out of a rational instance. There even exist games on it: defending random positions a an exercise for rhetoric and forum practice; Richard Osman invented one for television, named "I could not disagree more" (e.g. «We should avoid a third world war» // «I could not disagree more. If a war is inevitable, I will prefer it to be waged in the "Third World"». Absurdity on absurdity).

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
It's very rhetorically convenient how extreme positions become shortenings of very carefully qualified statements when questioned. As for the subject matter, it's a position I've seen defended on here. Sure it's random people, it's also a forum of software engineering professionals, you're not going to contribute much if you write-off everyone who disagrees with you as "non-credible".
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > convenient It is also the case, happily. "Nobody does that" openly implies, "oh my, some do". Like a legitimate "No True Scotsman". It does mean "show me a credible practitioner that thinks differently - then, let us see the elaboration". It is language: you have a full burden to interpret it. (And the guidelines oblige you to rubberbanding to the plausible.) > everyone who disagrees It is not a poll, it is never a poll: it is the arguments that count. And we are all professionals with different stories. Of course some defended a position against obscurity: by default, they must have meant that having algorithms cross checked saves the enterprise from the embarrassing finding by some mathematician that your apparently strong algorithm reduces to, say, a bit-shift. Or they could have misinterpreted the above completely and now shout "make everything public": because those individuals exist, and they are part of what you meet, and their presence does not have a Bayesian effect on truth.

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago

It's very rhetorically convenient how extreme positions become shortenings of very carefully qualified statements when questioned. As for the subject matter, it's a position I've seen defended on here. Sure it's random people, it's also a forum of software engineering professionals, you're not going to contribute much if you write-off everyone who disagrees with you as "non-credible".

mdp2021 4y ago
> convenient It is also the case, happily. "Nobody does that" openly implies, "oh my, some do". Like a legitimate "No True Scotsman". It does mean "show me a credible practitioner that thinks differently - then, let us see the elaboration". It is language: you have a full burden to interpret it. (And the guidelines oblige you to rubberbanding to the plausible.) > everyone who disagrees It is not a poll, it is never a poll: it is the arguments that count. And we are all professionals with different stories. Of course some defended a position against obscurity: by default, they must have meant that having algorithms cross checked saves the enterprise from the embarrassing finding by some mathematician that your apparently strong algorithm reduces to, say, a bit-shift. Or they could have misinterpreted the above completely and now shout "make everything public": because those individuals exist, and they are part of what you meet, and their presence does not have a Bayesian effect on truth.