Is this in response to something? What’s the context for this post?
It seems to me both obvious that criticism is allowed without having plausible alternatives, and that in the context of policy debate criticism without alternatives should be treated skeptically.
Not a response to anything in particular, but I’ve had a lot of discussions over my life where someone makes strong claims and doesn’t say they were erroneous when counterexamples are provided, such as this recent one.
The policy equivalent is The Real Rules Have No Exceptions: if “exceptions” are being made, the rule should be modified, discarded, or relabeled (e.g. as a guideline/heuristic). The criticism “you aren’t really following your rules” is valid even if you don’t have an alternative ruleset.
Is this in response to something? What’s the context for this post?
It seems to me both obvious that criticism is allowed without having plausible alternatives, and that in the context of policy debate criticism without alternatives should be treated skeptically.
Not a response to anything in particular, but I’ve had a lot of discussions over my life where someone makes strong claims and doesn’t say they were erroneous when counterexamples are provided, such as this recent one.
The policy equivalent is The Real Rules Have No Exceptions: if “exceptions” are being made, the rule should be modified, discarded, or relabeled (e.g. as a guideline/heuristic). The criticism “you aren’t really following your rules” is valid even if you don’t have an alternative ruleset.