3 ms·
"voicing concerns" ... a variant on "just asking questions". The problem is voicing concerns in a way that deliberately sidesteps the efforts and explanations
by PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
"voicing concerns" ... a variant on "just asking questions".
The problem is voicing concerns in a way that deliberately sidesteps the efforts and explanations of the, if you like, mainstream scientific community regarding why those concerns are misplaced, wrong or simply exaggerated. You voice concerns, concerns are addressed in various way, someone else or you revoices the concerns.
Now, of course, you can argue that your concerns have not been addressed. But that requires a new "voicing", one that takes into consideration the way that others sought to address your concerns. If you simply restate your concerns, you're not behaving in good faith, and after some point, "being humiliated as a crackpot" starts to look appropriate.
It is true, for example, that an asteroid could hit earth at any time, and quite easily wipe out most life on the planet. That is an absolutely true statement. It is probably even worth doing a little bit to try to reduce or mitigate the risks associated.
But continuing to insist that everyone needs to rearrange their way of thinking about life, the universe and everything based on this true statement, that this is the only way to think about asteroids and the risks of collision, that everyone who points out the demonstrable interval between planetary-scale asteroid collisions is hiding the truth - that's all pretty problematic.
- hotdogscout 3y agoWhat are you hoping to accomplish by labeling someone you think is acting in bad faith to be deserving of humiliation? I've never met an irrational person that acts the way you describe. They'll usually go quiet (if you engage in debate and address all their points), shut down and then subsequently repeat the same affirmations. My reaction to someone being humiliated is to listen to them a lot more carefully than I would otherwise, because more often than not in history these are the people that could drive our morality in the future.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoSometimes you do indeed just want them to go quiet, at least in one or more particular contexts. And yes, many humiliations are unjustified and counter-productive. But so is a refusal to engage with an actual argument and/or a refusal to engage in falsification.
- hotdogscout 3y agoYou may never convince someone to be rational but you may convince the interlocutors. Otherwise you're creating martyrs. Everyone has a valid point, even flat earthers. https://youtu.be/f8DQSM-b2cc https://youtu.be/f8DQSM-b2cc
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoI don't agree with Sabine. What I do agree with are the scientists near the end of the flat earth documentary (the one where the flat earthers' own experiments fail, but they can't take it in) who say that we should be trying to harness and (gently) direct the clear scientific curiosity that flat earthers have. That is, they have no point at all, but they do have curiosity, and we should welcome and nurture that.