They were also both written in English. The question is, can you see the difference?
Jayson apologetically expressed misunderstanding of rationality combined with an apparent willingness to be corrected. You arrogantly expressed your failure, and responded to criticism with ad hominems and whining.
Edit: In that post. Some of you responses were productive, and one is, at time of this writing, at positive karma.
So is social deference the missing ingredient in my post?
It would help, but the difference I was refer to was that Jayson was embarrassed by his failure of rationality, while you either failed to recognize yours or were proud of it.
Could you be more specific in what exactly was/is my failure and why/how I was arrogant about it, and what are the ad hominems?
Ad hominem arguments are attacks against the arguers, rather than the arguments. For example:
what can we say about the epistemological waterline here?
Comments like that will not impress people here. They may provoke a more hostile response than is really warranted, but they are not serious arguments.
You don’t consider the mention of prima facie evidence to be productive?
Starting an argument is often not perceived as productive by those who consider the topic a no brainer.
No one here is going to consider whining about persecution to be productive.
It would help, but the difference I was refer to was that Jayson was embarrassed by his failure of rationality, while you either failed to recognize yours or were proud of it.
How can mentioning of evidence ever be a failure of rationality? In the particular case of explosives in the WTC there are lots of supporting eye witnesses and video testimonies. The failure is to downvote it, which constitutes the same as supression of evidence.
You weren’t just presenting evidence. You were making an argument. Some people believed that you were engaged in motivated reasoning and/or privileging the hypothesis.
Please discuss the merits of the argument in the original thread, if desired. I’d prefer to keep the discussions of the merits of the argument and the reactions to it separate.
How can mentioning of evidence ever be a failure of rationality?
It can’t, but the way you communicate it can imply a failure of rationality. (i. e. the conclusions you imply and your expectations of the effect of the evidence on others)
They were also both written in English. The question is, can you see the difference?
Jayson apologetically expressed misunderstanding of rationality combined with an apparent willingness to be corrected. You arrogantly expressed your failure, and responded to criticism with ad hominems and whining.
Edit: In that post. Some of you responses were productive, and one is, at time of this writing, at positive karma.
So is social deference the missing ingredient in my post? I would rather have the evidence speak for itself.
Could you be more specific in what exactly was/is my failure and why/how I was arrogant about it, and what are the ad hominems?
You don’t consider the mention of prima facie evidence to be productive?
It would help, but the difference I was refer to was that Jayson was embarrassed by his failure of rationality, while you either failed to recognize yours or were proud of it.
Ad hominem arguments are attacks against the arguers, rather than the arguments. For example:
Comments like that will not impress people here. They may provoke a more hostile response than is really warranted, but they are not serious arguments.
Starting an argument is often not perceived as productive by those who consider the topic a no brainer.
No one here is going to consider whining about persecution to be productive.
How can mentioning of evidence ever be a failure of rationality? In the particular case of explosives in the WTC there are lots of supporting eye witnesses and video testimonies. The failure is to downvote it, which constitutes the same as supression of evidence.
You weren’t just presenting evidence. You were making an argument. Some people believed that you were engaged in motivated reasoning and/or privileging the hypothesis.
Please discuss the merits of the argument in the original thread, if desired. I’d prefer to keep the discussions of the merits of the argument and the reactions to it separate.
It can’t, but the way you communicate it can imply a failure of rationality. (i. e. the conclusions you imply and your expectations of the effect of the evidence on others)