2 ms·
It's a news article, not a research paper. It's kind of expected that they'd find (friendly) experts to rely on for appeal-to-authority and not be picky about q
by tbrownaw 3y ago
It's a news article, not a research paper. It's kind of expected that they'd find (friendly) experts to rely on for appeal-to-authority and not be picky about questioning "common knowledge" (that the article isn't specifically written to question).
It doesn't seem particularly worse than I'd expect a minor news article to be. Also, have you heard of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect?
- Pannoniae 3y agoJust because you don't expect them to do any better, that doesn't mean this is not just plain propaganda. The correct response to propaganda is not accepting it or saying "well it's expected from them" but to challenge it.
- davorak 3y ago> It's a news article, not a research paper. It's kind of expected that they'd find (friendly) experts to rely on for appeal-to-authority and not be picky about questioning "common knowledge" (that the article isn't specifically written to question). In this case I think they could have done a better job providing the context and reasoning of the experts. That would not change the point of the article and hopefully give readers an idea, not all of the details, of why the quote experts think what they think. As it is I do no think I can use the article to change my point of view, even incrementally, or better understand what and why others are thinking on the topic.