Effectiveness? I think @slatestarcodex was usually explaining, not trying to convince you of something.
-
-
"All language is sermonic." - Weaver in 140 or fewer characters
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Absolutely. If the strongest form of your argument can't be made on Twitter it's probably not worth making.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FreequentFlyr
If you can "argue" in 140 characters, you're probably not giving any evidence or addressing any real issues.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex
In my view disputing the adequacy of evidence is a way to evade stating your actual views.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FreequentFlyr @slatestarcodex
If I say "we should have a universal basic income" and you say "the evidence is muddled" only one of us has made an argument.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FreequentFlyr
I'm very pro-UBI, but just saying "I support UBI" and not telling anyone why is unconvincing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @FreequentFlyr
If you say "I support UBI" and I say "I support UBI, and here's why...", well, again, only one of us has made an argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex
Evidence and argumentation are fine, but arguing *over* evidence and argumentation is a distraction.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FreequentFlyr
Are you familiar with the replication crisis in science?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Something like half of the scientific studies of past few decades have been wrong because scientists used crappy methodology.
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.