@freemo fair enough. what's the meta-response then? what set of responses for most people you deal with would be useful in, say, making people (at least the ones you are contact with) more scientifically literate over observable time scales? :P

@2ck generally there isnt one. Most of these people are going to believe what they believe

Socratic questioning to lead them to a parodox sometimes works if they have some sense of logic, most do not.

Shame can sometimes work to shut them up at least and that means they dont spread their ideas as readily. But that doesnt always work either.

For most you just wont get through.

@freemo @2ck Tell someone something that jives with their existing beliefs and they'll accept it without question. If it's contrary to what they believe most snarks will demand you provide a level of evidence that isn't even possible. You could make for them a full comparative analysis as described in the picture, controlling for biased sources and etcetera, and they will actually become even more obstinate and defensive.

@admin

Agreed. But I think the point of the meme is not that one should provide that level of evidence to convince others, but rather that you should provide that level of evidence for yourself, when determining your convictions.

I think when your mindset is to disprove your own assumptions then it is an easier barrier to break than when someone else from the outside is trying to do it.

@2ck

@freemo I think it's a good idea but not really feasible. The average person doesn't have anywhere near the time or attention span to research things that rigorously. They depend on people who do to research on their behalf and synthesize the information into something more digestible for normies. It's a worse way of getting information but it's much more efficient. I just think that their writing reeked of snark, and I want people to know that no level of research will ever be enough to satisfy some people.

@admin I'm not sure I agree. Most people are plenty capable and could have the attention span to critically review their sources. Most just dont because there isnt much societal pressure to do so.

Those who are well researched dont generally get much more respect, in fact often the opposite.

It is a societal issue rather than capability itself.

@freemo Almost everyone is 'capable' of checking. A minority would ever even bother. A small percentage would actually look into sources. I think less than 1% of people would go to the level described in that pic, and probably only for a niche issue that they really care about. Once they go through all that effort and they present what they found to someone like the person who wrote that rant, it can easily be rejected out-of-hand. I've seen it happen so many times online that I feel like it's not even worth it. I want to warn people not to waste their time. Not in doing the research because that still has value for yourself, as you said, but to labor in the expectation that eventually you'll reach the evidentiary requirement somebody claimed to have. That eventually you can prove to some nonce on facebook that you were right and they were wrong. It's just not going to happen.

@admin I agree few people would, thats the point, they should, they could, they wont.

I do agree that most people would dismiss it out of hand but that again goes back to what I said before. If your whole mentality in doing that research is so you can prove others wrong and yourself correct, then you've already done it wrong.

People should be willing and eager to do that level of research regardless of if they intend to share ti with even a single person. They should be doing it for themselves simply as part of their process for forming an opinion, even when that opinion wont be shared.

@freemo Yea I think we're on the same page. It's all good stuff but some people who say it are just the biggest hypocrites. I don't get it from you but I was definitely reading it in the pic you posted. So full of shit I can smell it through the computer. Just set me off.

@admin well that's fair :)

@freemo @admin you're sounding like Bacon's (translated) novum organum (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/te8gXf9fXb7JWbJ9b/novum-organum-introduction). I think I found it in a toot somewhere around here

@2ck

I would take that comparison as a honor :)

@admin