Quoting myself from elsewhere in this thread:

> It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism.

Quoting someone who already explained why this interpretation is untenable:

> The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise, it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark. I mean, we all can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an independent platitude.

I find it just as plausible a read of the thread that the root's take-away was "trust the government," as you seem to find "skepticism is good" to be "a defense of ignorant reactionaries."

If there's anything in the world that warrants some extra skepticism, it's the well-meaning-ness of government and its penchant for unintended consequences...

> I find it just as plausible a read of the thread that the root's take-away was "trust the government," as you seem to find "skepticism is good" to be "a defense of ignorant reactionaries."

Would you care to explain why?

> If there's anything in the world that warrants some extra skepticism, it's the well-meaning-ness of government and its penchant for unintended consequences...

I agree in general, but the root comment made a specific argument about why certain skeptics are not compelling. I don’t see how these hand wavy proclamations about how skepticism is good is in any way relevant to that.

> Would you care to explain why?

For one thing, the ur-comment never even allows for the possibility of non-"armchair expert" criticism of this approach. "Experts who make this their livelihood recommend this course of action." So? Experts have never been wrong, or made egregiously compromised choices, based on the facts and resources they had available?

More to the point, other "experts" were dissatisfied enough with the implications of this course of action that they asked the US Fish and Wildlife Service not to do the thing. [0]

There appears to have been on the order of zero planning for how to prevent the birds from ingesting the rat poison, or what to do if any birds who do eat the stuff then fly to the mainland, to name just a couple of the staggeringly obvious problems with this plan that, as far as I can tell, weren't even considered.

[0] https://www.latimes.com/style/pets/la-me-farallon-islands-ra...

> For one thing, the ur-comment never even allows for the possibility of non-"armchair expert" criticism of this approach. "Experts who make this their livelihood recommend this course of action." So? Experts have never been wrong, or made egregiously compromised choices, based on the facts and resources they had available?

I don't see how you could read the comment to suggest that. It is quite clearly criticizing the nature of the reaction using language such as "silly quips" and "very little rational discussion" instead of criticizing the fact that the reaction is happening at all. Anyone critical of the plan had ample opportunity to post a substantive complaint instead of a handwavy dismissal of the idea of root comment.

> Anyone critical of the plan had ample opportunity to post a substantive complaint instead of a handwavy dismissal of the idea of root comment.

And, per my linked article, other experts did.

When an idea that obviously terrible gets promulgated (and, I'm sorry, but being unable to answer the question: "How will you prevent the birds you're trying to protect from also eating the poison?" ipso facto makes a plan "terrible"), it deserves little more than derision in the form of "silly quips."

I have deadlines, which need my attention more than continuing to talk past one another here. Have a nice day.

> And, per my linked article, other experts did.

Yes, and other experts responded to those issues and there was an interesting technically interesting back and forth. Meanwhile on hackernews, armchair critics posted condescending and meaningless dismissals. For some reason you are defending them instead of advocating your position reasonably.

> I'm sorry, but being unable to answer the question: "How will you prevent the birds you're trying to protect from also eating the poison?" ipso facto makes a plan "terrible"

It isn't in any way relevant, but you can not possibly justify the claim that they are unable to answer that question.

> For some reason you are defending them instead of advocating your position reasonably.

You know when I said we were talking past one another? This right here is why.

You're attributing a motive to me, which "you can not possibly justify". You aren't in my head. You're reading the position you want to find in my words, which is absolutely not the position I'm taking.

To be clear, then, my entire position is premised on "healthy" skepticism, which I found to be the operative word in the post that spawned this trawl through pedantry. I think suggestions like "throw cats at the problem" are patently ludicrous, and if you browsed that particular thread, you'd see my comments to that effect.

I'm done here. 'dang or 'sctb, please feel free to mark this entire sub-thread as off-topic. I'm sorry for having been party to raising the noise floor.

EDIT: Phrasing.

Oh, I see the point of confusion now. To be clear I am not attributing any motive to you at all. I take issue with what you actually posted, not your intent.