3 ms·

This is ridiculous. A "debate guide" on how to argue with people who hold views that diverge from mainstream opinion is just pointless. What do you think this w

This is ridiculous. A "debate guide" on how to argue with people who hold views that diverge from mainstream opinion is just pointless. What do you think this will accomplish? Every single scientific/engineering /humanities field contains people who disagree with the mainstream of that field. E.g. every advocate for purely functional programming diverges from the mainstream on the best practices for software engineering. Of course that doesn't mean equating this to "theories" about the earth being flat. My point is the exact opposite. There always is a gradient between a debate in some field, to a totally bizarre nonsense theory. Deciding on a border between which of these views to platform and which of them to disregard is always arbitrary and has to be decided on a case by case basis. Especially arguing based on some idea of relative numerical superiority is just ridiculous and will make an encyclopedia look ridiculous.

dwaltrip 1y ago
…Huh? What are you proposing?
- constantcrying 1y ago
  That a binary distinction between "fringe" and "consensus" is nonsense and that trying to have a "debate manual" to argue with people holding "fringe views" is just ridiculous.
  - dwaltrip 1y ago
    What policy would you recommend for something like Wikipedia? Obviously, you can’t let people post whatever they want.
    - constantcrying 1y ago
      My recommendation is that this is treated on a case by case basis, rather than any determination whether a belief is "fringe", and that if any position is platformed, it is platformed together with how it is viewed by those who advocate for it and against it. In the case of flat earth it should be made clear that it is not a legitimate view, that nobody with any legitimacy or authority believes in it. I also gave the example of purely functional software development, which is also a fringe view. There it should be made clear that it is a legitimate view on software development, even if the majority of academia and industry disagrees with it. I also recommend to not have debate manuals on how to debate people who try to push nonsense into Wikipedia.
y-curious 1y ago
1. Aptly named HN user 2. “I didn’t read the article award” recipient
- constantcrying 1y ago
  I did read the article, what makes you say I didn't?

dwaltrip 1y ago

…Huh? What are you proposing?

constantcrying 1y ago
That a binary distinction between "fringe" and "consensus" is nonsense and that trying to have a "debate manual" to argue with people holding "fringe views" is just ridiculous.
- dwaltrip 1y ago
  What policy would you recommend for something like Wikipedia? Obviously, you can’t let people post whatever they want.
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    My recommendation is that this is treated on a case by case basis, rather than any determination whether a belief is "fringe", and that if any position is platformed, it is platformed together with how it is viewed by those who advocate for it and against it. In the case of flat earth it should be made clear that it is not a legitimate view, that nobody with any legitimacy or authority believes in it. I also gave the example of purely functional software development, which is also a fringe view. There it should be made clear that it is a legitimate view on software development, even if the majority of academia and industry disagrees with it. I also recommend to not have debate manuals on how to debate people who try to push nonsense into Wikipedia.

y-curious 1y ago

1. Aptly named HN user 2. “I didn’t read the article award” recipient

constantcrying 1y ago
I did read the article, what makes you say I didn't?