There's something interesting going on in this discussion here, and in previous discussions on Alexandros's writing on this topic.
There's a lot of people pointing at how Alexandros is pretty critical of Scott/Scott's epistemics (and curiously missing his similar criticisms of the community's epistemics), rather than just focusing on whether or not Scott's conclusions are true and/or justified. Alexandros does seem pretty critical, so fair enough there. And there's a conversation to be had about how critical is appropriate, and how to figure out how critical is appropriate.
But that conversation isn't happening.
Instead, we're getting accusations that Alexandros is "attacking"/"grinding his axe against"/"picking on" Scott rather than sticking to the object level and minimizing "unnecessary heat"... in a way that sure looks a bit like "attacking"/"grinding axes against"/"picking on" Alexandros. You know, with insults including but not limited to "absolutely autistic", "creepy", and "fucking stalker". People showing up just to let everyone know that they don't care to talk to him because he's bad. And, of course, not one object level rebuttal yet as of when I'm writing this.
Is Alexandros acting like an obsessed stalker who once got attention from a girl, and letting his emotions pull him away from truth and honesty? Is Scott letting the fear of his "expert status" being challenged interfere with his neutral truth seeking? Are these questions both completely fair and valid, both out of line by virtue of attempting to address the person instead of the argument, or is there some principle saying that one can be asserted without argument while the other is unacceptable to question even with many pages of argument? And if so, what is that principle?
So far no one is addressing Alexandros's arguments about whether ivermectin works.
Or whether Scott's arguments against ivermectin are valid.
Or whether Alexandros's criticisms of Scott's (and the communty's!) epistemics are valid.
It's all focused on a rather uncharitable mind reading of Alexandros motivations. This isn't entirely a bad thing in itself since there's actually a lot to be gained by tracking the least-flattering-consistent-explanation of people's behaviors/beliefs, but it sure is interesting what happens when you apply this metric uniformly and judge those criticizing Alexandros on this metric.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There's something interesting going on in this discussion here, and in previous discussions on Alexandros's writing on this topic.
There's a lot of people pointing at how Alexandros is pretty critical of Scott/Scott's epistemics (and curiously missing his similar criticisms of the community's epistemics), rather than just focusing on whether or not Scott's conclusions are true and/or justified. Alexandros does seem pretty critical, so fair enough there. And there's a conversation to be had about how critical is appropriate, and how to figure out how critical is appropriate.
But that conversation isn't happening.
Instead, we're getting accusations that Alexandros is "attacking"/"grinding his axe against"/"picking on" Scott rather than sticking to the object level and minimizing "unnecessary heat"... in a way that sure looks a bit like "attacking"/"grinding axes against"/"picking on" Alexandros. You know, with insults including but not limited to "absolutely autistic", "creepy", and "fucking stalker". People showing up just to let everyone know that they don't care to talk to him because he's bad. And, of course, not one object level rebuttal yet as of when I'm writing this.
Is Alexandros acting like an obsessed stalker who once got attention from a girl, and letting his emotions pull him away from truth and honesty? Is Scott letting the fear of his "expert status" being challenged interfere with his neutral truth seeking? Are these questions both completely fair and valid, both out of line by virtue of attempting to address the person instead of the argument, or is there some principle saying that one can be asserted without argument while the other is unacceptable to question even with many pages of argument? And if so, what is that principle?
So far no one is addressing Alexandros's arguments about whether ivermectin works.
Or whether Scott's arguments against ivermectin are valid.
Or whether Alexandros's criticisms of Scott's (and the communty's!) epistemics are valid.
It's all focused on a rather uncharitable mind reading of Alexandros motivations. This isn't entirely a bad thing in itself since there's actually a lot to be gained by tracking the least-flattering-consistent-explanation of people's behaviors/beliefs, but it sure is interesting what happens when you apply this metric uniformly and judge those criticizing Alexandros on this metric.
More options
Context Copy link