4 ms·

it's also not hard to find people who think fluoride in the water is turning the frogs gay. doesn't make it true

gruez 9mo ago
I'm not claiming that those people are right, only that the "videos ... speak for themselves" claim isn't true. If people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"? If so, can we also say ambiguous studies on whether ivemectin was effective against covid "speak for themselves"? Or does it just become a no true scotsman where you can say whatever evidence "speaks for themselves", and anyone who disagrees are lunatics?
- fzeroracer 9mo ago
  At some point you have to assume the people are, in fact, lunatics. Your argument is essentially the same as saying there is no such thing as a fact, because you can always find one person who disagrees. Someone thinking that the earth is flat and gravity isn't real doesn't make the evidence ambiguous, it makes the person you're dealing with either willfully ignorant or fucking with you.
- postflopclarity 9mo ago
  > if people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"? because a disappointingly large fraction of the public is unable to acknowledge facts of reality. the video is speaking, but some people just ain't listening.
  - gruez 9mo ago
    >because a disappointingly large fraction of the public is unable to acknowledge facts of reality. the video is speaking, but some people just ain't listening. If something really does "speak for themselves", but also "disappointingly large fraction" (1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? 50%?) refuse to accept it, is that a meaningful statement? Is it the epistemic equivalent of "80% of the time, it works every time"?
    - postflopclarity 9mo ago
      I don't know what you want me to say. "some people are wrong and dumb" is not an argument compelling enough to me to reject the evidence of my eyes and ears.
      - AlexeyBelov 9mo ago
        The point is that "other people" use the same exact argument too. The evidence of _their_ eyes and ears. This is not meaningful. I think "ok, I was wrong" is what you could've said.
        postflopclarity 9mo ago
        their eyes and ears are bad I guess. sometimes other people really are just dumb and wrong. when two people disagree, the truth doesn't always lie "in the middle."
Izkata 9mo ago
Original context: He was reacting to a study about chemicals in the water triggering the natural sex-change ability of some frogs. Sooo yeah, "they're turning the frogs trans" would have been more accurate, but would have sounded even more absurd.

gruez 9mo ago

I'm not claiming that those people are right, only that the "videos ... speak for themselves" claim isn't true. If people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"? If so, can we also say ambiguous studies on whether ivemectin was effective against covid "speak for themselves"? Or does it just become a no true scotsman where you can say whatever evidence "speaks for themselves", and anyone who disagrees are lunatics?

fzeroracer 9mo ago
At some point you have to assume the people are, in fact, lunatics. Your argument is essentially the same as saying there is no such thing as a fact, because you can always find one person who disagrees. Someone thinking that the earth is flat and gravity isn't real doesn't make the evidence ambiguous, it makes the person you're dealing with either willfully ignorant or fucking with you.
postflopclarity 9mo ago
> if people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"? because a disappointingly large fraction of the public is unable to acknowledge facts of reality. the video is speaking, but some people just ain't listening.
- gruez 9mo ago
  >because a disappointingly large fraction of the public is unable to acknowledge facts of reality. the video is speaking, but some people just ain't listening. If something really does "speak for themselves", but also "disappointingly large fraction" (1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? 50%?) refuse to accept it, is that a meaningful statement? Is it the epistemic equivalent of "80% of the time, it works every time"?
  - postflopclarity 9mo ago
    I don't know what you want me to say. "some people are wrong and dumb" is not an argument compelling enough to me to reject the evidence of my eyes and ears.
    - AlexeyBelov 9mo ago
      The point is that "other people" use the same exact argument too. The evidence of _their_ eyes and ears. This is not meaningful. I think "ok, I was wrong" is what you could've said.
      - postflopclarity 9mo ago
        their eyes and ears are bad I guess. sometimes other people really are just dumb and wrong. when two people disagree, the truth doesn't always lie "in the middle."

Izkata 9mo ago

Original context: He was reacting to a study about chemicals in the water triggering the natural sex-change ability of some frogs. Sooo yeah, "they're turning the frogs trans" would have been more accurate, but would have sounded even more absurd.