Argumentative cheaters thrive because their arguments aren’t properly scrutinized.
This statement does not pass the “fact check”.
Well if scrutiny didn’t do any good then why do we have peer review in science? This is a sort of peer review (but hopefully more effective than the standard scientific peer review) on a massive scale.
It’s just obvious that rational criticism generally does improve argumentative standards.
Well if scrutiny didn’t do any good then why do we have peer review in science?
a) scientists are slightly better than average in caring for accuracy b) there is a contradictory evidence whether peer-reviews improve publication quality
It’s just obvious that rational criticism generally does improve argumentative standards.
Eh… “obvious” is not a good criterion for either impartiality or accuracy.
Well if scrutiny didn’t do any good then why do we have peer review in science? This is a sort of peer review (but hopefully more effective than the standard scientific peer review) on a massive scale.
It’s just obvious that rational criticism generally does improve argumentative standards.
a) scientists are slightly better than average in caring for accuracy
b) there is a contradictory evidence whether peer-reviews improve publication quality
Eh… “obvious” is not a good criterion for either impartiality or accuracy.