- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 2,816
- Likes
- 8,282
I had no idea this thread was about a private beef that had taken place here, and I have no interest in the PM-vs-thread argument.
In the spirit of the thread topic, I will say that while I strive for consistency in my views - in other words, I strive to be equally rigorous in my analysis and understanding regardless of where the facts lead - I am sure that I am not entirely consistent, because I'm a human being, and therefore flawed and liable to all sorts of influences and biases.
But I don't think "gotchas" are useful - for example, if someone writes something that is not scientifically rigorous about one topic, that doesn't invalidate everything they've written, or measured, scientifically about another topic. I would say there's nothing wrong with pointing out contradictions or inconsistencies in someone's logic or analysis - but since we all are hypocrites at one moment or another, we're all liable to being called out, and that can be abused easily.
The point, as I see it, is to try to pursue factual knowledge, and to be as rigorous as we can about separating what we think or feel on the one hand, with what can be proven or established and replicated by other people on the other hand.
In the spirit of the thread topic, I will say that while I strive for consistency in my views - in other words, I strive to be equally rigorous in my analysis and understanding regardless of where the facts lead - I am sure that I am not entirely consistent, because I'm a human being, and therefore flawed and liable to all sorts of influences and biases.
But I don't think "gotchas" are useful - for example, if someone writes something that is not scientifically rigorous about one topic, that doesn't invalidate everything they've written, or measured, scientifically about another topic. I would say there's nothing wrong with pointing out contradictions or inconsistencies in someone's logic or analysis - but since we all are hypocrites at one moment or another, we're all liable to being called out, and that can be abused easily.
The point, as I see it, is to try to pursue factual knowledge, and to be as rigorous as we can about separating what we think or feel on the one hand, with what can be proven or established and replicated by other people on the other hand.