E.g. I'd be relieved if climate change skeptics were right. But I think some would sooner the world cook than lose the argument.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Better test: whether they resort to ad hominem vs. anyone w/ opinion contra to narrative. Ad hominem = confession of ideological thinking.
-
I dunno, some humans just take shit personally. We're wired that way as social creatures.
-
A mark of civilization and rationality is to be able to extract your personal reaction from the conversation and address the argument itself
-
Though I agree with you, I'm talking practical dealing with humans, not 19th C philosophy.
-
We're talking about tests for ideology. How's that impractical "19th C philosophy?" How does "ppl get offended" contribute to discussion?
-
I think you misunderstand something.
-
Oh. What?
-
That your test isn't better than Paul's. Your test is based on a very specific and narrow worldview/philosophy; it has limited value.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
example? Having trouble following the logic
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But how can you test for this? You can't just ask.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Confounding variable: arguing for the sake of finding the truth vs arguing for the sake of winning an argument
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.