4 ms·

This is a real problem. Realistically, a well researched flat earth scientist could destroy the average nasa scientist in a debate. You only need to lie about o

This is a real problem. Realistically, a well researched flat earth scientist could destroy the average nasa scientist in a debate. You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like science got conclusively btfo. Of course, given enough time the nasa scientist will be able to piece things together, but they might never be able to recover some people. While there are legitimate concerns about the scientific method being too strict, I think it's necessary to help us keep faith in a field. That's why I dislike fields that lean into methodological anarchy, like critical theory. They really have no business claiming any sort of authority.

msla 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. The logical conclusion of that is the Gish Gallop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop > The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.[1][2] Even if it's a moderated debate where an outright gallop isn't allowed, it's still easier for the dishonest party to erect a strawman claim than it is for the honest one to carefully rebut it, especially if the dishonest claim is so far into wackyland it's Not Even Wrong and requires a lot of its assumed premises to be demolished first.
- Loughla 3y ago
  And with how modern media is structured, for short drive-by statements and social media engagement, this (I would argue natural) human argument style is made a thousand times worse.
mistermann 3y ago
Realistically, a well researched flat earth scientist could destroy the average nasa scientist in a debate. You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like science got conclusively btfo. Of course, given enough time the nasa scientist will be able to piece things together, but they might never be able to recover some people. > While there are legitimate concerns about the scientific method being too strict, I think it's necessary to help us keep faith in a field. Important phrase: "keep faith in" - faith is always in play (it is fundamental to culture & consciousness), and it is healthy for the institution of science to acknowledge it imho. > That's why I dislike fields that lean into methodological anarchy, like critical theory. They really have no business claiming any sort of authority. Might this be an instance of "You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like {the field} got conclusively btfo"? You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate. Science and its methodologies are excellent for figuring out the physical realm, but watch out if you apply these methods to the metaphysical realm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  > Important phrase: "keep faith in" - faith is always in play (it is fundamental to culture & consciousness), and it is healthy for the institution of science to acknowledge it imho. Science does rest on unfalsifiable foundations, but this isn't productive to discuss. I'm talking about the faith that scientists aren't making stuff up given the reasonable foundations we all already agree on. > Might this be an instance of "You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like {the field} got conclusively btfo"? I don't think so. If you accept my premise that authoritative fields should be held to strict and conservative scientific standards, then critical theory is categorically ruled out by it's own definition. Yet people dress it up as if it were strict and conservative field, like a cargo cult. > You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate. I think I made my premises clear, but I dislike the suggestion that they are merely my opinions. Most people actually share my views, but are willing to pick and choose when they apply them. > Science and its methodologies are excellent for figuring out the physical realm, but watch out if you apply these methods to the metaphysical realm. I'm not applying science to critical theory. My issue with critical theory is it's methods.
hydrogen7800 3y ago
Like the Bill Nye/Ken Ham "debate" some years ago [0]. A bit painful for me to watch. A creationist would come away feeling quite vindicated after that one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debat...

msla 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. The logical conclusion of that is the Gish Gallop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop > The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.[1][2] Even if it's a moderated debate where an outright gallop isn't allowed, it's still easier for the dishonest party to erect a strawman claim than it is for the honest one to carefully rebut it, especially if the dishonest claim is so far into wackyland it's Not Even Wrong and requires a lot of its assumed premises to be demolished first.

Loughla 3y ago
And with how modern media is structured, for short drive-by statements and social media engagement, this (I would argue natural) human argument style is made a thousand times worse.

mistermann 3y ago

Realistically, a well researched flat earth scientist could destroy the average nasa scientist in a debate. You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like science got conclusively btfo. Of course, given enough time the nasa scientist will be able to piece things together, but they might never be able to recover some people. > While there are legitimate concerns about the scientific method being too strict, I think it's necessary to help us keep faith in a field. Important phrase: "keep faith in" - faith is always in play (it is fundamental to culture & consciousness), and it is healthy for the institution of science to acknowledge it imho. > That's why I dislike fields that lean into methodological anarchy, like critical theory. They really have no business claiming any sort of authority. Might this be an instance of "You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like {the field} got conclusively btfo"? You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate. Science and its methodologies are excellent for figuring out the physical realm, but watch out if you apply these methods to the metaphysical realm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

zeroCalories 3y ago
> Important phrase: "keep faith in" - faith is always in play (it is fundamental to culture & consciousness), and it is healthy for the institution of science to acknowledge it imho. Science does rest on unfalsifiable foundations, but this isn't productive to discuss. I'm talking about the faith that scientists aren't making stuff up given the reasonable foundations we all already agree on. > Might this be an instance of "You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like {the field} got conclusively btfo"? I don't think so. If you accept my premise that authoritative fields should be held to strict and conservative scientific standards, then critical theory is categorically ruled out by it's own definition. Yet people dress it up as if it were strict and conservative field, like a cargo cult. > You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate. I think I made my premises clear, but I dislike the suggestion that they are merely my opinions. Most people actually share my views, but are willing to pick and choose when they apply them. > Science and its methodologies are excellent for figuring out the physical realm, but watch out if you apply these methods to the metaphysical realm. I'm not applying science to critical theory. My issue with critical theory is it's methods.

hydrogen7800 3y ago

Like the Bill Nye/Ken Ham "debate" some years ago [0]. A bit painful for me to watch. A creationist would come away feeling quite vindicated after that one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debat...