I wish people could make more of an effort to be open to reasonable and courteous discussion - particularly with people who are new to the forum, particularly when they are questioning rather than dictating, and particularly when they make it clear that they are not approaching the subject from a hardline sceptic position.
Questioning our assumptions should never be a bad thing to do, and when the questioner is met with and defensiveness and hostility they are not likely to be persuaded. If newcomers to the site meet with that kind of reaction, we risk alienating people who could make a valuable contribution to the field.
(2019-07-24, 07:46 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I wish people could make more of an effort to be open to reasonable and courteous discussion - particularly with people who are new to the forum, particularly when they are questioning rather than dictating, and particularly when they make it clear that they are not approaching the subject from a hardline sceptic position.
Questioning our assumptions should never be a bad thing to do, and when the questioner is met with and defensiveness and hostility they are not likely to be persuaded. If newcomers to the site meet with that kind of reaction, we risk alienating people who could make a valuable contribution to the field.
What’s prompted this Chris?
(2019-07-24, 07:51 AM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]What’s prompted this Chris?
I followed this conversation, and it's obvious to me who's the aggressor in this case. And definitely it's not Tim, it was not Tim accusing his opponent of dislexia and, eventually, "low IQ", all while boasting incessantly about his published work. Tim, like any man would, responded to verbal aggression.
(2019-07-24, 09:43 AM)Enrique Vargas Wrote: [ -> ]Great argument.
OK, if you want me to spell it out -
I read the thread too, and I disagree completely. In fact, I think that by trying to blame the original poster for what happened, you are adding insult to injury.
What we had, essentially, was someone asking for empirical evidence of something - something he was inclined to believe, not something he was contesting. The response to that was assertions based on what people had said. He patiently and courteously explained the difference between evidence and assertion several times. In fact, I was surprised at his patience. But the end result was what anyone who has followed similar discussions in the past would have expected - he was accused of being unreasonable for not accepting the assertions, and it all became personal and unpleasant.
I have experienced much the same in the past myself when I've had the temerity to post anything at all sceptical in that area.
The problem with arguments from authority is that the "authorities" can be wrong, new information can emerge, and old assumptions can be superseded. So in my book, anyone who questions assumptions is doing the field a service, and the kind of response we saw here is a gross disservice.
(2019-07-24, 10:04 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]OK, if you want me to spell it out -
I read the thread too, and I disagree completely. In fact, I think that by trying to blame the original poster for what happened, you are adding insult to injury.
What we had, essentially, was someone asking for empirical evidence of something - something he was inclined to believe, not something he was contesting. The response to that was assertions based on what people had said. He patiently and courteously explained the difference between evidence and assertion several times. In fact, I was surprised at his patience. But the end result was what anyone who has followed similar discussions in the past would have expected - he was accused of being unreasonable for not accepting the assertions, and it all became personal and unpleasant.
I have experienced much the same in the past myself when I've had the temerity to post anything at all sceptical in that area.
The problem with arguments from authority is that the "authorities" can be wrong, new information can emerge, and old assumptions can be superseded. So in my book, anyone who questions assumptions is doing the field a service, and the kind of response we saw here is a gross disservice.
Ah, ok, you bias against Tim is loud and clear. Nothing to talk about.
Talks about talks is one thing. But maybe participating in the talks could have calmed things, rather than sniping from the sidelines, which only hardens attitudes.
Chris Wrote:I wish people could make more of an effort to be open to reasonable and courteous discussion - particularly with people who are new to the forum, particularly when they are questioning rather than dictating, and particularly when they make it clear that they are not approaching the subject from a hardline sceptic position.
Questioning our assumptions should never be a bad thing to do, and when the questioner is met with and defensiveness and hostility they are not likely to be persuaded. If newcomers to the site meet with that kind of reaction, we risk alienating people who could make a valuable contribution to the field.
There is nothing unreasonable or rude about anything I wrote in that thread until PR took Umbridge about something he deemed to be very important (the song played in the OR).
Vigorous discussion but nothing particularly untoward until PR began to get shirty. I don't see what it's got to do with you BTW ?
You seem to me to me overtly "touchy" with a very thin skin.