6 ms·
Oh is that what happened to Tim Hunt?
by hoopd 11y ago
Oh is that what happened to Tim Hunt?
- civilian 11y agoAnd here's a reference for hoopd's comment: https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-hunt-the-real-story https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-... edit// okay, here's another article that dives into the nuance and doesn't just try to plaster Tim Hunt. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-timothy-hunt-witch-hunt/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-timothy-hunt...
- danharaj 11y agoreason.com follows the same naming convention as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
- Karunamon 11y agoAttacking the source rather than the content is usually the mark of a poor debating position. If the content is good, the source doesn't matter. If the content is bad, the source's badness will be self-evident.
- danharaj 11y agoA debate is a formal event with rules. These are Internet comments. I'm not debating a position. I'm expressing myself. If you think my observation is nonconstructive, that's fine, but it's not because if I were debating I would have made a blunder, it's because we have different expectations and desires in this conversation.
- Karunamon 11y agoThat's fine, I'm just pointing out that your expression is incompatible with basic logic. Saying "this source sucks because x" does not address in any way what they actually said.
- aidenn0 11y agoIt's actually completely compatible with logic: Source X claims Y. I know very little about Y. I know a fair amount about X, and what I know indicates that X is an unreliable source. Therefore, I will not significantly alter my beliefs about Y until a more reliable source than X comes around.
- pkinsky 11y agoFortunately in this year 2015 we have a thing called hyperlinks via which evidence for assertions can be easily provided. If you treat op-eds from 'unreliable' sources as unreliable, fine. If you refuse to even check well-cited articles from 'unreliable' sources, you're probably more interested in ideological correctness than truth.
- danharaj 11y agoThere is a nonzero cost of verifying, analyzing, and engaging with any text. The more substantial the text, the larger the cost. I don't have to read another Reason article to know that it's got the same systematic blindspots Reason articles have, and I don't think I could convince anyone of that, so I just communicated my stance and went on. There's nothing 'illogical' about it. I did not state my argument; I just stated my position. I think the charge that this violates basic logic is making a poor assumption: that absence of my argument is the same thing as not having an argument. I don't want to make the argument. I want to snark about Reason. So I did. Shrug.