5 ms·

That seems like a pretty empty criticism when the article itself is basically a dust-cover synopsis of his book. He's illustrating particular points using repre

That seems like a pretty empty criticism when the article itself is basically a dust-cover synopsis of his book. He's illustrating particular points using representative commonly-held irrational beliefs, not laying out a point-by-point case against each. Your line of thinking seems to imply that every counterargument must be considered before drawing a conclusion. Since the possible counterargument space is basically infinite, we wouldn't be able to decide anything. That can't be right. You have to be able to identify patterns of reasoning that are common to a whole set of "thought processes working in any number of contexts," and recognize how certain patterns will invalidate any argument that relies on them. Which is exactly what he's doing. And why he can feel confident in calling certain beliefs irrational without having heard every possible argument in their favor.

TikiTDO 15y ago
I was not trying to write some deep criticism of the article, those are simply my thoughts while reading the text in question; some are negative, some are less so. Clearly I was not impressed in the author, but you may have noticed that I consider the idea to have plenty of merit. Now to start, my line of thinking is that you should try to exhaust a reasonable number of counter arguments before deciding that your point is well made. To ascribe to me the ridiculous notion that you must seek out an infinite number of counter arguments is really quite insulting. You do no one a service by tossing together a few popular thoughts and calling it a book. Granted, maybe he'll go more in depth in the actual book, but given the synopsis I find that less than likely. That brings me to my main point. A synopsis should try to emphasize the best points of the work he is trying to advertise. Instead, I see strongly worded opinions without any concessions or even hints of why and how people arrive at contrary thoughts. I see not even a hint of analysis of the phenomenon in question. In fact, all I see thinly disguised self-congratulatory masturbation regurgitating the same arguments that have to this day not managed to significantly sway the numbers of believers of the bullshit he rails against by any significant amount. I get that the author is a scientist, but there is plenty of material by scientists discussing this very topic. As for your argument about patterns; my point is that I have seen more patterns at works in the minds of these people than the few you seem to describe. You can learn much about how people think by not being insulted at the mere idea of a silly view or belief. Unfortunately, most of the arguments the author, and other people like him use serve only to reinforce these patterns instead of dismantling them.

TikiTDO 15y ago

I was not trying to write some deep criticism of the article, those are simply my thoughts while reading the text in question; some are negative, some are less so. Clearly I was not impressed in the author, but you may have noticed that I consider the idea to have plenty of merit. Now to start, my line of thinking is that you should try to exhaust a reasonable number of counter arguments before deciding that your point is well made. To ascribe to me the ridiculous notion that you must seek out an infinite number of counter arguments is really quite insulting. You do no one a service by tossing together a few popular thoughts and calling it a book. Granted, maybe he'll go more in depth in the actual book, but given the synopsis I find that less than likely. That brings me to my main point. A synopsis should try to emphasize the best points of the work he is trying to advertise. Instead, I see strongly worded opinions without any concessions or even hints of why and how people arrive at contrary thoughts. I see not even a hint of analysis of the phenomenon in question. In fact, all I see thinly disguised self-congratulatory masturbation regurgitating the same arguments that have to this day not managed to significantly sway the numbers of believers of the bullshit he rails against by any significant amount. I get that the author is a scientist, but there is plenty of material by scientists discussing this very topic. As for your argument about patterns; my point is that I have seen more patterns at works in the minds of these people than the few you seem to describe. You can learn much about how people think by not being insulted at the mere idea of a silly view or belief. Unfortunately, most of the arguments the author, and other people like him use serve only to reinforce these patterns instead of dismantling them.