Random Thoughts 3: A Little Bit of This, and a Little Bit of That...

[Mouthwash]

It does now?

Yep, usually the only way to override an expert's opinion is to cite another expert. That's why every side holds them up as oracles (look at my intellectuals, they're better than yours).

Most people would be better off listening to common sense and tradition.

Except that "Fake News Media" is an arbitrary, unilateral, generalized label Trump just assigns, with no evidence or hard backing, to a huge and very HERTOGENOUS AND DIVERSE field of endeavour with massive variance in opinion, beliefs, conduct, agendas, and even focus, for the purpose of convincing his bran-dead, hypnotized, unquestioning, and often stupid and undereducated cult of personality, and as many other people as possible, that the ENTIRE MEDIA COMPLEX, as whole, solid bloc, is engaged in a deceitful campaign of deception IN SEEMING SOLID CONSENSUS and is an enemy of the nation.

But that's how it feels to people. Radical positions are being hoisted onto the populace by a minority with outsize influence (e.g. those who have been raised with a Biblical understanding of marriage are now being told they are 'phobic', and every culturally significant figure agrees). You don't think it's their right to even suspect that something unhealthy is going on without personally writing rebuttals?

Trump not providing a solution, but he is at least acknowledging how people feel. The left only pathologizes and excludes them.

 

[Takhisis]

Basically, you're saying that I'm making all kinds of claims I can't prove. Your post serves as a good example of what I'm talking about - at least Trump is able to simply say "Fake News Media are making all kinds of claims they can't prove."

Go on…

 

[Patine]

Yep, usually the only way to override an expert's opinion is to cite another expert. That's why every side holds them up as oracles (look at my intellectuals, they're better than yours).

Most people would be better off listening to common sense and tradition.

Ah, tradition. The tried and true method where small groups of elites, who owned all the land and held all the power, held such authority for centuries, even millennia, by dressing it up in pretense, superstition, unchanging social contracts, ridiculous stereotypes and myths, and other bizarre and strange claptrap that was only challenged successfully when enough members of the oppressed and exploited majority gained access to enough education to question the old, broken, failed, and self-serving gong show.

 

[Mouthwash]

Ah, tradition. The tried and true method where small groups of elites, who owned all the land and held all the power, held such authority for centuries, even millennia, by dressing it up in pretense, superstition, unchanging social contracts, ridiculous stereotypes and myths, and other bizarre and strange claptrap that was only challenged successfully when enough members of the oppressed and exploited majority gained access to enough education to question the old, broken, failed, and self-serving gong show.

If your argument is that only elites respect tradition I really don't know what to say to you.

 

[Patine]

If your argument is that only elites respect tradition I really don't know what to say to you.

Oh, not at all. I'm just saying that tradition was originally set up to only significantly serve the elites in the first place. There's difference in those two statements.

 

[Mouthwash]

Culture has been around for as long as humans have been a species. Elites haven't.

 

[Patine]

Culture has been around for as long as humans have been a species. Elites haven't.

Maybe if you strictly define "elites" as moneyed, noble, royal, theocratic, or elite warrior classes, you'd be correct. But, humans are, by nature, a species of hierarchy, competition, greed, structure, intraspecies violence, vengeful tendencies, and territoriality by our base nature. There's ALWAYS been "elites," even if they're not always so blatant, overt, and clear-cut as the archetypes I stated above.

 

[Patine]

Trump not providing a solution, but he is at least acknowledging how people feel. The left only pathologizes and excludes them.

Oh, I can't believe I missed this. Another "the left," as though speaking of a hive-mind, undissenting, solid bloc consensus (the type that is completely non-existent anywhere in human society, history, or endeavour) is completely, unanimously, and solidly guilty of a given crippling and serious problem in the world or a fundamental human flaw or failing, which (by omission of the statement) "the right" is assumably, completely, 100%, to every member innocent of any complacency in. These are among the stupidest of political rhetoric going around today not specifically said in jest or parody. Although, even if much rarer (at least that I've seen said), I fully concede it's just as stupid when the said same kind of thing is said, but the "left" and "right" are reversed in role.

 

[Traitorfish]

So where are you getting the idea I believe ALL intellectuals are charlatans?

Trump is no more or less a liar than modern intellectuals are.

This is, appropriately, a very Trumpian gesture, make a bold and outlandish claim, and then when challenged, denying that you ever made such a claim to begin with.

Maybe if you strictly define "elites" as moneyed, noble, royal, theocratic, or elite warrior classes, you'd be correct. But, humans are, by nature, a species of hierarchy, competition, greed, structure, intraspecies violence, vengeful tendencies, and territoriality by our base nature. There's ALWAYS been "elites," even if they're not always so blatant, overt, and clear-cut as the archetypes I stated above.

Speaking of bold and outlandish claims.

 

[Mouthwash]

This is, appropriately, a very Trumpian gesture, make a bold and outlandish claim, and then when challenged, denying that you ever made such a claim to begin with.

Apparently the use of any sort of generality puts someone on Donald Trump's level. Learned something today!

 

[Arakhor]

If you play a similar piano, then you will be accused of being in the same neighbourhood.

 

[Dachs]

I'd respect a consensus by historians that - as you say - Stalingrad's symbolic importance outweighed its strategic importance to the Germans.)

Such a consensus exists. The opinion is held by scholars in both Russia and the West, by specialists like Jason Mark and generalists like Dennis Showalter. It even appears in atlases of the war, like that edited by John Keegan and the more recent one edited by Robert Kirchubel. Pretty much every discussion of what the Nazis did in 1942 emphasizes that pursuing Stalingrad and the Caucasus simultaneously was a humongous error, and that seizing a few miles of Volga shoreline did not have very much strategic value at all compared to the symbolic or propagandistic value of taking the city. Initially, strategic rationale for capturing all of Stalingrad focused on its use as a bridgehead for the Soviets to threaten the flank of the German forces in the Caucasus. Well and well (although the city's value as a bridgehead was diminished by German artillery observation of the Volga itself), but protecting the flank eventually absorbed vastly more attention than the actual "main" offensive did.

Trump is no more or less a liar than modern intellectuals are. It's just that the intellectuals are more eloquent, bury their absurd claims in reasonable-sounding frameworks and theories (see: motte-and-bailey tactics), defend one another while colluding to silence alternative viewpoints, and get superficial facts right while providing their own false "context".

This is kind of oblivious. These so-called "motte and bailey tactics" are exactly what you yourself do here!

Trump is no more or less a liar than modern intellectuals are.

Apparently the use of any sort of generality puts someone on Donald Trump's level. Learned something today!

You start by offering the unqualified opinion that modern intellectuals are liars - and liars on a par with the most notorious liar of modern history to boot! Then, in the second post, you retreat to the "bailey" of merely using some sort of generalization.

The even funnier part here is that Slate Star Codex's writer here is basically describing many of the most popular modern right-wing media personalities' tactics without irony. It's just what intelligence analysts would call mirror-imaging: assuming the opposition is just like you. When liberals mirror-image, they fool themselves into thinking that conservatives are fundamentally decent people who are willing to flout the rules a little bit to win political power. When these conservatives mirror-image, they loudly proclaim that liberals do all the scummy things that conservatives themselves do, and in equal or greater numbers with equal or greater severity.

 

[Patine]

When liberals mirror-image, they fool themselves into thinking that conservatives are fundamentally decent people who are willing to flout the rules a little bit to win political power. When these conservatives mirror-image, they loudly proclaim that liberals do all the scummy things that conservatives themselves do, and in equal or greater numbers with equal or greater severity.

You know, I think it's come to the point in the political debate where I've come, more and more, to admire a lesser-known, rarely-quoted quote by Benjamin Franklin he said VERY late in life - only a few years before his death in 1790 - in response to where he stood politically as the foundations of the First Party System were being laid amongst the U.S. Founding Fathers.

"I am a radical centrist, and anyone to the left or right of me should be castrated,"

 

[Ryika]

Yep, usually the only way to override an expert's opinion is to cite another expert. That's why every side holds them up as oracles (look at my intellectuals, they're better than yours).

To really debunk the things that an expert says, you have to understand the whole picture of what is going on. Otherwise, you'll likely just draw conclusions that might sound sensible on the surface, but ultimately ignore factors that are important to the overall picture. So to understand the overall picture, which is required to make a good case against an expert, you actually have to become an expert in the field that you're analyzing, not just cite one.

Given that it is not feasible to be an expert on all the relevant topics, the "appeal to scientific consensus" is the practical alternative. It's not that "my expert overrides you expert" - some people will play that game, but these people are idiots. Instead, what creates a strong case here in such situations is that if the majority of experts in a field agree on something, then that's most likely correct. That's not always true, because in the end scientists are still people, but again... practicality. Listening to what the experts have to say has by far the highest accuracy rate of all the available methods.

 

[brennan]

If you play a similar piano, then you will be accused of being in the same neighbourhood.

Wisdom for the ages.

 

[Mouthwash]

This is kind of oblivious. These so-called "motte and bailey tactics" are exactly what you yourself do here!

It's called hyperbole. The 'motte' position is, by definition, a serious claim. Do you recall me quantifying the precise dishonesty of all intellectuals and comparing them to Trump's?

The even funnier part here is that Slate Star Codex's writer here is basically describing many of the most popular modern right-wing media personalities' tactics without irony. It's just what intelligence analysts would call mirror-imaging: assuming the opposition is just like you. When liberals mirror-image, they fool themselves into thinking that conservatives are fundamentally decent people who are willing to flout the rules a little bit to win political power. When these conservatives mirror-image, they loudly proclaim that liberals do all the scummy things that conservatives themselves do, and in equal or greater numbers with equal or greater severity.

That's because conservatives are inherently more decent and thus more aware of how corrupting politics is.

To really debunk the things that an expert says, you have to understand the whole picture of what is going on. Otherwise, you'll likely just draw conclusions that might sound sensible on the surface, but ultimately ignore factors that are important to the overall picture. So to understand the overall picture, which is required to make a good case against an expert, you actually have to become an expert in the field that you're analyzing, not just cite one.

Given that it is not feasible to be an expert on all the relevant topics, the "appeal to scientific consensus" is the practical alternative. It's not that "my expert overrides you expert" - some people will play that game, but these people are idiots. Instead, what creates a strong case here in such situations is that if the majority of experts in a field agree on something, then that's most likely correct. That's not always true, because in the end scientists are still people, but again... practicality. Listening to what the experts have to say has by far the highest accuracy rate of all the available methods.

This is the case only in STEM fields (maybe other fields like history, if it is backed up by physical evidence).

 

[Synobun]

That's because conservatives are inherently more decent and thus more aware of how corrupting politics is.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

In a moment of absolute madness and mad curiosity I entered my first name into the youtube search bar, expecting to see at least a few cool people with that name.
Nope.
Most first hits are by some music dude/project I've never heard about.
The worst part ?
Not even the artists real first name.
And I can't even complain about "cultural appropriation" because my name is A Word in the language.

 

[brennan]

By definition Conservatives are opposed to change. How does that make them more decent? Brezhnev was a Conservative for example, as were the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

That's because conservatives are...aware of how corrupting politics is.

Yes !
Because they're corrupting it.