> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
The logical conclusion of that is the Gish Gallop:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
> The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.[1][2]
Even if it's a moderated debate where an outright gallop isn't allowed, it's still easier for the dishonest party to erect a strawman claim than it is for the honest one to carefully rebut it, especially if the dishonest claim is so far into wackyland it's Not Even Wrong and requires a lot of its assumed premises to be demolished first.
> While there are legitimate concerns about the scientific method being too strict, I think it's necessary to help us keep faith in a field.
Important phrase: "keep faith in" - faith is always in play (it is fundamental to culture & consciousness), and it is healthy for the institution of science to acknowledge it imho.
> That's why I dislike fields that lean into methodological anarchy, like critical theory. They really have no business claiming any sort of authority.
Might this be an instance of "You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like {the field} got conclusively btfo"?
You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate.
Science and its methodologies are excellent for figuring out the physical realm, but watch out if you apply these methods to the metaphysical realm.
Science does rest on unfalsifiable foundations, but this isn't productive to discuss. I'm talking about the faith that scientists aren't making stuff up given the reasonable foundations we all already agree on.
> Might this be an instance of "You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like {the field} got conclusively btfo"?
I don't think so. If you accept my premise that authoritative fields should be held to strict and conservative scientific standards, then critical theory is categorically ruled out by it's own definition. Yet people dress it up as if it were strict and conservative field, like a cargo cult.
> You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate.
I think I made my premises clear, but I dislike the suggestion that they are merely my opinions. Most people actually share my views, but are willing to pick and choose when they apply them.
> Science and its methodologies are excellent for figuring out the physical realm, but watch out if you apply these methods to the metaphysical realm.
I'm not applying science to critical theory. My issue with critical theory is it's methods.
How could you possibly know such a thing? What does "not productive" even mean in this context?
> I'm talking about the faith that scientists aren't making stuff up given the reasonable foundations we all already agree on.
Ya, me too - is it not weird that those who subscribe to science because it "does not" deal in faith do so based on faith?
> I don't think so. If you accept my premise that authoritative fields should be held to strict and conservative scientific standards, then critical theory is categorically ruled out by it's own definition. Yet people dress it up as if it were strict and conservative field, like a cargo cult.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"
See also: Meme Magic.
>> You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate.
> I think I made my premises clear, but I dislike the suggestion that they are merely my opinions.
Where did this word "merely" come from?
> Most people actually share my views, but are willing to pick and choose when they apply them.
You have no means of knowing what all people believe.
> I'm not applying science to critical theory.
What about: "If you accept my premise that authoritative fields should be held to strict and conservative scientific standards"?
> My issue with critical theory is it's methods.
Technically: your impression/model of its methods.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debat...
While there are legitimate concerns about the scientific method being too strict, I think it's necessary to help us keep faith in a field. That's why I dislike fields that lean into methodological anarchy, like critical theory. They really have no business claiming any sort of authority.