4 ms·
Such a fascinating article. Let's break this post down: - Anecdotes used for evidence (check) - Moral outrage declared (check) - Call to arms based on emotio
by FD3SA 12y ago
Such a fascinating article. Let's break this post down:
- Anecdotes used for evidence (check)
- Moral outrage declared (check)
- Call to arms based on emotion (check)
- Appeal to baseless fanatical ideology (check)
- Vilification of a massive segment of the population as homogeneous villians (check)
There really appears to be a massive disconnect between very high intelligence and the ability to accurately observe the real world. Or perhaps in the age when page views reign supreme, rational empirical analysis becomes a vestigial burden from a bygone era.
For you rebels out there who still demand scientific rigor in your articles, please consider an expert's opinion on the matter at your discretion [1].
1. http://edge.org/memberbio/helena_cronin http://edge.org/memberbio/helena_cronin
- beat 12y ago- And how do you get evidence without anecdotes? - If true, should we not be morally outraged? - If true, should we not be emotional? Should there not be a call to arms? - (expletive deleted) - Are men truly treated homogeneously in this article? - Is every opinion you don't like stupid and/or irrational?