And after you’ve done this umpteen times?
And after you’ve done that? There are instances in which the the person trying to be understood IS intentionally trying to obfuscate and play it loose, so their thinking can’t be taken apart. In those instances they deserve no protection and shouldn’t be shielded from robust questioning. Even a grilling.
That’s not what I was advocating. Sorry. Maybe you intended this for someone else.
I’ve been away for awhile. From my personal experience of tom’s moderation, (if can one actually call it that), he’s nailed and you, sir, have a gift for caricature.
I’d like to add that, intrigued by this post, I checked out some of your previous posts and have discovered that I no longer significantly disagree with you.
Well done.
I’m curious as to where you’d file my question of choice. When I see someone making a vague prediction, I always want mere clarification: what, exactly, is being predicted? What hypothetical evidence would prove it true, and what hypothetical evidence would prove it false? GIGO seems convinced that I’m doing it to play gotcha.
He’s not the only one. Particularly when in its infancy, the whole ‘where’s the falsification?’ direction was exposed as empty by a series of posters, not just GIGO. He’s just the only one to keep engaging; most others went the way that they do when similarly pseudo-debate tactics keep repeating themselves (e.g. only one or two people will continue to engage with someone making a birther or intelligent design talking point, long after most responded and recognized the utter futility of continuing).
I don’t see futility; GIGO eventually gave me a falsification criterion, at which point I of course stopped asking for one. If you feel that’s a pseudo-debate tactic, I can only add that (a) were I to make a prediction, I wouldn’t regard you as engaging in pseudo-debate tactics if you were to ask for my falsification criteria, and (b) I’d of course respond to such a question by supplying my criteria of choice.
Surely you don’t think asking for a prediction’s falsification criteria is a “pseudo-debate tactic” in all other contexts?
That’s when you declare yourself the winner and then move on.
Straight up, there’s a reason why I didn’t get involved in that discussion very much (at least not with you): I wasn’t there in the beginning, and the line-by-line rebuttals it devolved into are calculated specifically to drive me insane. On its surface, asking for falsification seems reasonable. However, it seemed to me that people were pointing out flaws in the question itself, which is a reasonable response; at that point, were I you, I’d step back and ask a different question. For example, if there’s not a clear set of data that would falsify global warming, is there any way in which we may hold climate scientists accountable? Or, if there’s not said clear set of data, why not?
It looked to me as though Gigo et al. were answering questions about why your original question was invalid. This is a perfectly valid line of discussion.
Er – which original question do you have in mind, exactly? I know you didn’t want to go line-by-line, but my go-to phrasing is pretty much the aforementioned “what hypothetical evidence would prove your prediction false?”
The thing is, I would’ve been just as happy if I’d gotten that crystal-clear staking out of position you’re attributing to 'em: that no clear set of data would falsify said prediction. I would’ve stopped as soon as I’d heard either that or the falsification criteria.
Let me reiterate: all those dogs in that fight? I don’t own them. Take that up with them.
It’s all fun and games until someone gets rabies.