EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 33
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
Falling
Canada11279 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Secondary sources in general are not great as a source to prove your point in the context of trying to prove a point. It's basically saying "I cite X who gives his opinion on Y" instead of just giving your own opinion on Y. And why can't you do that? Generally it's because the people who posted it are just copying what sounds reasonable that supports what they want to believe is true. Less common but existent is pushing an agenda with a deliberate overuse of such source material to try to appear to be well-informed. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 27 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote: How do you differentiate between someone who fetishizes experts and someone who knows or aspires to know what experts say on a subject? Fetishizing experts is basically accepting the opinion of experts as the absolute truth, and if "experts" disagree with a certain position then it is instantaneously invalid, end of story. Also what could fall into this is the viewpoint of "find me experts who argue this point to prove it's valid." Wanting to know what experts say on a subject involves... actually reading what experts say on a subject. Preferably with a due amount of critical thought since said experts are far from perfect and far from unbiased. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
On November 27 2016 15:32 LegalLord wrote: Fetishizing experts is basically accepting the opinion of experts as the absolute truth, and if "experts" disagree with a certain position then it is instantaneously invalid, end of story. Also what could fall into this is the viewpoint of "find me experts who argue this point to prove it's valid." Wanting to know what experts say on a subject involves... actually reading what experts say on a subject. Preferably with a due amount of critical thought since said experts are far from perfect and far from unbiased. This counters what you said earlier in which bringing up experts in public discourse was in itself pseudo-intellectualism. Now you need a specific attitude connected to the bringing up of experts. This description of fetishization doesn't warrant a removal of expert opinion. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I really don't think you're going anywhere good with this. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 27 2016 15:36 Nebuchad wrote: This counters what you said earlier in which bringing up experts in public discourse was in itself pseudo-intellectualism. Now you need a specific attitude connected to the bringing up of experts. This description of fetishization doesn't warrant a removal on expert opinion. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I really don't think you're going anywhere good with this. What? How did you get that? I definitely didn't say that. They shouldn't be used as a tool to make your arguments for you. Make the arguments yourself. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
On November 27 2016 15:38 LegalLord wrote: What? How did you get that? I definitely didn't say that. That was my take on: "When it's used in a public discourse, it has a different purpose: to appear well-versed and to be able to cite sources and expect people to just take your word for it because the amount of effort it takes to actually address it is ridiculous. That is pseudo-intellectualism, pure and simple." On November 27 2016 15:38 LegalLord wrote: They shouldn't be used as a tool to make your arguments for you. Make the arguments yourself. As long as there is a way to consider expert opinion without fetishizing it, there is no reason to demand that. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 27 2016 15:40 Nebuchad wrote: That was my take on: "When it's used in a public discourse, it has a different purpose: to appear well-versed and to be able to cite sources and expect people to just take your word for it because the amount of effort it takes to actually address it is ridiculous. That is pseudo-intellectualism, pure and simple." Referring to "academic style argument." Which is absolutely true. Any academic who isn't capable of using plainspeak when talking outside of his/her/its academic sphere isn't really worth listening to outside of that academic sphere. Same goes for anyone who writes up a post in academic style, though in that case I suspect a more deliberate game of obfuscation at play there. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
On November 27 2016 15:44 LegalLord wrote: Referring to "academic style argument." Which is absolutely true. Any academic who isn't capable of using plainspeak when talking outside of his/her/its academic sphere isn't really worth listening to outside of that academic sphere. Same goes for anyone who writes up a post in academic style, though in that case I suspect a more deliberate game of obfuscation at play there. If you were talking about style in your answer to me, then you still haven't explained your original claim of "Frankly, the "this academic said" "that academic said otherwise" game is a pointless show of pseudo-intellectualism" | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 27 2016 15:46 Nebuchad wrote: If you were talking about style in your answer to me, then you still haven't explained your original claim of "Frankly, the "this academic said" "that academic said otherwise" game is a pointless show of pseudo-intellectualism" That was referring to one specific type of back-and-forth between certain posters who argue on certain issues of economics. They spend a lot of time citing academics to prove their point rather than making it by discussing the issues themselves. That is pseudo-intellectualism, in fact in both forms. Both by reciting the opinions of experts as if it were their own, and by injecting academic style into their posts. I assume you either know or can figure out which posters in specific I'm referring to who have a tendency to do this. Honestly this is starting to look like a Doodsmack-style "let me find a context to make your posts look as if they're contradictory" misrepresentation. It's a game that gets really tiring really fast. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
On November 27 2016 15:54 LegalLord wrote: That was referring to one specific type of back-and-forth between certain posters who argue on certain issues of economics. They spend a lot of time citing academics to prove their point rather than making it by discussing the issues themselves. That is, in fact, pseudo-intellectualism, in fact in both forms. Both by reciting the opinions of experts as if it were their own, and by injecting academic style into their posts. I assume you either know or can figure out which posters in specific I'm referring to who have a tendency to do this. Yeah sure I see what you're talking about. I guess the main problem is that every time you go into details, it shows that the bringing up of expert opinion is not the problem, but certain attitudes towards the bringing up of expert opinions are. So I'm not sure why you're choosing to target expert opinion to make that point. As per your edit: You answered to me objecting to your use of the word pseudo-intellectualism by talking about this "academic style". Now you're telling me that pseudo-intellectualism was used for a different reason than what you brought up in answer to me... Forgive me if that wasn't clear, given that this wasn't what you brought up in your answer? I can only represent what you're showing to me. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11279 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Yes, I suppose you could say that attitudes towards expert opinions are the problem. Experts have their place in the discussion, especially as a "read more" or a "look at this neat thing that has been said" feature, but they certainly shouldn't be used to make an argument for you. That misuse is far too common to be ignored and is in my opinion one of the most underacknowledged faults of the thread. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 27 2016 16:04 Falling wrote: I... honestly don't see what the problem is just so long as people aren't posting really long videos or papers without commentary, which was already expressed in the original thread. One, many cases really aren't well-commented enough. There's plenty of interjections into the middle of the discussion that basically just consist of (insert fan-favorite blogger and/or John Oliver here) which people expect to have rebutted, else they instantly assume its correctness (and they will assume it regardless because of previously mentioned reasons). Second, if the "expert" is used as a source in and of himself, instead of as a "see more details" feature for an argument that should be explained by the poster himself in full, the discussion quickly turns into one of the following scenarios: Case 1: A: "Rachmaninoff argued in his book that X" *mic drop* B: (decides not to bother because this would be a ridiculous waste of time; see below) C, D, E: OMG, A is my hero! He super smart! Result: Discussion ends. This is actually probably the best outcome as you will see below. But obviously this is still not a good result because it means that citing people is an instant discussion-killer. Case 2: A: "Rachmaninoff argued in his book that X" *mic drop* B: "Well in his book, Stravinsky argued Y in opposition to X" A: "Well Shostakovitch made a commentary supporting Rachmaninoff and opposing Stravinsky's point" B: "Well Borodin countered Shostakovitch's criticism in Z" C, D, E: (scroll through, no one can bother reading a bunch of quoted articles for so long) Result: Thread gets stupid. It's now a citation war rather than an argument over ideas. Not to mention that this citation war involves a hell of a lot of time if you don't just happen to have a bunch of experts ready to cite. Case 3: A: "Rachmaninoff argued in his book that X" *mic drop* B: "Well I noticed flaws F, G, and H in Rachmaninoff's book" or "Well if you look at I and J excerpts it seems that Rachmaninoff is arguing for Y instead" A: "No, you read him wrong! He is definitely right about everything he says and he is definitely arguing X!" B: "Wtf? FGHIJ say otherwise!" A: "No, they don't." B: "Yes, they do." C, D, E: I'm just going to assume the position I am predisposed to support is right and call it a day. Result: Thread gets really stupid. It's now a fight over interpretations, not over ideas; namely, the interpretations of (some academic) rather than the ideas that are being talked about. By introducing a new party to the discussion we spend much more time evaluating their credibility rather than the strength of the argument being made. Because they said that Rachmaninoff argued for X instead of giving an argument for X, that added a stupid amount of not particularly relevant cognitive load to the argument. These are all situations that arise quite commonly within the thread. None are good, and most are hard to acknowledge from the side if you're not actually party to any of the discussions. And the length of the post itself isn't the only indicator; if it's a long post that makes itself obscenely long by proxy (through its cited material) then that's even worse. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 27 2016 16:35 IgnE wrote: i object. interpretations are ideas. perhaps all ideas. That's the philosophizer in you talking. Also, updated for perhaps some clarity. "X because of A, B, and C; see also Rachmaninoff's book on the matter" is what it should look like, rather than making Rachmaninoff's book the center of the discussion. Because ultimately, while it's not instantaneously apparent, that really is mostly a distraction. A, B, and C are what should be discussed most of all, not Rachmaninoff's book. The latter is a diversion introduced by the argument not being properly made. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
"Here is a contextless YouTube video, tweet, op ed, etc". Forbidden and actionable. "Here is what I think, and my reasoning is X, but person Y said it more eloquently than me, so here is a link that I urge you to watch/read if this interests you" is a valuable contribution to the thread. Regardless of whether that link is Chomsky or Breitbart. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Chomsky was rebutted well in thread to my vague memory. Acro said it well above. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 27 2016 15:54 LegalLord wrote: Honestly this is starting to look like a Doodsmack-style "let me find a context to make your posts look as if they're contradictory" misrepresentation. It's a game that gets really tiring really fast. You mean The Daily Show style. I, however, think it's a useful game to avoid wasting time arguing with people that are known for that. On November 27 2016 16:25 LegalLord wrote: C, D, E: I'm just going to assume the position I am predisposed to support is right and call it a day. Wait, that's ninety nine percent of the thread. I do get what you're saying. I just think everybody knows by now to gloss over long video or deep (sometimes paywalled) academic citations. It's useful to have somebody busts out the "no academic/researcher/scientist believes what you're saying" type of argument. It's not useful when it's one appeal to authority after another. Nobody has the time to critically examine historical, economic, military, climatological, sociological papers because politics treads so many fields and it takes a survey of competing academic works to gain an understanding at what things are in academic contention (or if you cite Chomsky, all bets are off). But, you know, people know this. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 27 2016 17:55 Acrofales wrote: Why is there 23 posts of feedback about sources? Aren't the rules already clear? "Here is a contextless YouTube video, tweet, op ed, etc". Forbidden and actionable. "Here is what I think, and my reasoning is X, but person Y said it more eloquently than me, so here is a link that I urge you to watch/read if this interests you" is a valuable contribution to the thread. Regardless of whether that link is Chomsky or Breitbart. I dispute that the latter is valuable. If the fact that the mere mention of Breitbart sends people on a "your source is stupid and you're stupid for linking it" tirade isn't a problem then I don't know what is. We end up with Case 3 above. Chomsky is the same. I don't think that "someone else said it more eloquently than me" is a valid argument. It's a deflection to avoid having to defend your own argument yourself. It's not immediately apparent that that is the case but I argue that ultimately it is so. | ||
| ||
