So, for example, if I want to report that a specific post is factually incorrect, ideally it should be like this:
I think this post violates rule 7 “Guesses, WAGs, and speculation” because the topic is one of a factual nature and the post includes a counterfactual claim X contradicted by Y.
But I’ve been reading SayTwo’s posts and he usually doesn’t make factual claims in factual discussions. Rather he weighs in on broader, non-factual topics with broad non-factual claims.
For example, look at the current conversation in the QZ topic “Am I missing something here? (re: reopening of bars, etc… now)”.
Post #1314, SayTwo writes “I think the science is coming around to a consensus that the closures are no longer worth it.” This is technically a claim about SayTwo’s thoughts, which means it is literally impossible for me to verify. Even extending the claim to “science is coming around to a consensus that closures are no longer worth it”, that is a very broad claim, based on inductive reasoning, very difficult to definitively prove or disprove.
But I don’t think the main problem is the claim, it seems to be the way SayTwo defends it. This is an excellent example of his argumentative style:
Post #1316, BanquetBear asks SayTwo whether it was wrong for the UK and Sweden to close their schools. This is a clear attempt to poke holes in SayTwo’s argument about scientific consensus. He insists that SayTwo answer this question before continuing the discussion, post #1318.
Post #1319, SayTwo writes “I can’t answer it because I can’t find a cite for it. Might you have one I could borrow?”
Post #1321, BanquetBear reminds SayTwo that the question goes to the heart of SayTwo’s argument about scientific consensus, and implies that SayTwo should have an opinion already.
Post #1322, SayTwo pleads ignorance and admits to having no opinion on whether the UK or Sweden were wrong to close their schools.
Post #1324, BanquetBear points out that SayTwo can’t make the general argument in #1314 since he/she is ignorant of the specific contexts in countries like the UK and Sweden.
It’s bad argument form and I think, after pleading ignorance of the specifics, this approaches “wild speculation” that GQ rule 7 is supposed to prohibit. Is QZ supposed to be a place where laypeople can just speculate about lockdown measures, or is it supposed to be a place where people can receive informed/expert opinions about the pandemic?
~Max