on debating
Sep. 6th, 2005 08:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eiriasInteresting essay on scientific vs. political debates over at Mano's blog. As a scientist, I think he's a bit too optimistic about scientists - psychology, at least, is no stranger to straw men, or to flank attacks. But his characterization of political debates seems right on. Though, really, just about everybody I know starts building scarecrows when the topic is an emotional one. It's easy to believe that one statement logically implies another, more offensive one when you've become sensitized to it. I guess the implied difference is that whereas this kind of sloppiness in thoughtful people comes from being emotionally overwrought, politicians and pundits are usually doing it on purpose.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-06 02:25 pm (UTC)I find that most political "debates" are fought on about a 4th grade level. It's rare that you can find anyone who can discuss even the most trivial political issue without turning it into name calling and such within 5mins. I think this is the main reason I hate politics. I think political theory is interesting. But no one is interested in that. People are interested in yelling dogma and slogans.
Science is definitly not perfect, or even as good as I would like to think that is it. But nothing could touch the horrible levels politics sink to.
/rant
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-06 03:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-06 06:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-06 10:18 pm (UTC)