No game at all, I am simply scrutinizing your statement “that looks to be a strawman.”
This has grown from talking about a minor mistaken view into a request for general guidance on how to evaluate people’s reputations and claims about truth
Not at all, I am trying to nail down your position.
And unless you’re willing to accept me personally as the Ultimate Arbiter Of All Things, I don’t see why my opinion about some girls in some videos (which I haven’t looked at, by the way) matters
I am asking for your opinion because I want to understand what you mean by “reasonably serious.” I have a feeling that the phrase means nothing at all, it’s just an out for you to dismiss counter-examples to your generalization.
So again my questions:
If someone asserts or implies that generally speaking obesity is caused by low metabolism, how do I know if they have adequate knowledge of human physiology and are not trolling?
Are the girls in the videos I linked worthy of attention and time (at the beginning of the video, before they were scientifically tested)? In your opinion, do they have adequate knowledge of human physiology? If not, how do you know it?
(which I haven’t looked at, by the way)
I can summarize the videos in a couple sentences. Each one contains a fat girl who asserts that she is fat because of her “low metabolism.” The girls have their metabolisms scientifically tested. It turns out that their metabolisms are perfectly normal; the problem is that they are eating a lot more than they realize.
Ok, with that understood, do you consider the girls (as they were at the beginning of the videos) to be “reasonably serious”? Why or why not? It’s a pretty simple question.
And if someone asserts or implies that generally speaking obesity is caused by low metabolism, how do I know if they have adequate knowledge of human physiology and are not trolling?
Oh, dear . If you really have no idea—none at all whatsoever—how to find out whether people you’re listening to are credible, please go figure out how to do this. This is going to be a much better use of your time than posting on LW.
Why not?
Because as far as I can see (which, as I mentioned, isn’t very far) they were just fat girls specifically selected for having a particular false belief so that this belief could be debunked on video.
Oh, dear . If you really have no idea—none at all whatsoever—how to find out whether people you’re listening to are credible
Lol, nice strawman. I was asking how YOU determine whether somebody is “reasonably serious.”
But enough is enough—we both know that “reasonably serious” as you used the phrase is essentially meaningless. I asked you a few times, and each time you dodge and weave. See below.
Because as far as I can see (which, as I mentioned, isn’t very far) they were just fat girls specifically selected for having a particular false belief so that this belief could be debunked on video.
And now your position starts becoming a bit more clear:
It appears that according to you, anyone who who believes that obesity is in general caused by a slow metabolism has a false belief which ipso facto makes them not “reasonably serious.”
Therefore your claim that no reasonably serious people believe that obesity is caused by slow metabolism is in essence just a meaningless tautology. As noted above, you are engaged in the True Scotsman fallacy.
None of this changes the fact that there is a belief out there that obesity is in general caused by slow metabolism. Whether people who hold that belief are “reasonably serious” or not is irrelevant to my point. Indeed, it would appear that such people are “not reasonably serious” by definition.
In short, your statement “that looks to be a strawman” does not stand up to scrutiny and in fact is itself based on an attack on a strawman.
No game at all, I am simply scrutinizing your statement “that looks to be a strawman.”
Not at all, I am trying to nail down your position.
I am asking for your opinion because I want to understand what you mean by “reasonably serious.” I have a feeling that the phrase means nothing at all, it’s just an out for you to dismiss counter-examples to your generalization.
So again my questions:
If someone asserts or implies that generally speaking obesity is caused by low metabolism, how do I know if they have adequate knowledge of human physiology and are not trolling?
Are the girls in the videos I linked worthy of attention and time (at the beginning of the video, before they were scientifically tested)? In your opinion, do they have adequate knowledge of human physiology? If not, how do you know it?
I can summarize the videos in a couple sentences. Each one contains a fat girl who asserts that she is fat because of her “low metabolism.” The girls have their metabolisms scientifically tested. It turns out that their metabolisms are perfectly normal; the problem is that they are eating a lot more than they realize.
Ok, with that understood, do you consider the girls (as they were at the beginning of the videos) to be “reasonably serious”? Why or why not? It’s a pretty simple question.
People who have demonstrated a sufficient level of knowledge and competency.
In the usual way—you bother to find out. Thing these people say are evidence that you use to update your prior.
On the basis of available to me information, no, but that’s a low-credence opinion and can easily be changed by additional evidence.
And how exactly do I do that?
Why not?
And if someone asserts or implies that generally speaking obesity is caused by low metabolism, how do I know if they have adequate knowledge of human physiology and are not trolling?
Oh, dear . If you really have no idea—none at all whatsoever—how to find out whether people you’re listening to are credible, please go figure out how to do this. This is going to be a much better use of your time than posting on LW.
Because as far as I can see (which, as I mentioned, isn’t very far) they were just fat girls specifically selected for having a particular false belief so that this belief could be debunked on video.
Lol, nice strawman. I was asking how YOU determine whether somebody is “reasonably serious.”
But enough is enough—we both know that “reasonably serious” as you used the phrase is essentially meaningless. I asked you a few times, and each time you dodge and weave. See below.
And now your position starts becoming a bit more clear:
It appears that according to you, anyone who who believes that obesity is in general caused by a slow metabolism has a false belief which ipso facto makes them not “reasonably serious.”
Therefore your claim that no reasonably serious people believe that obesity is caused by slow metabolism is in essence just a meaningless tautology. As noted above, you are engaged in the True Scotsman fallacy.
None of this changes the fact that there is a belief out there that obesity is in general caused by slow metabolism. Whether people who hold that belief are “reasonably serious” or not is irrelevant to my point. Indeed, it would appear that such people are “not reasonably serious” by definition.
In short, your statement “that looks to be a strawman” does not stand up to scrutiny and in fact is itself based on an attack on a strawman.