That's twice today.
First: "How can computer scientists say an expert psychologist is wrong in psychology*?"
Second: "One author is a PhD researcher and another a lawyer. These people are not qualified to debunk a systematic review of medicine."
(*Except for the parts which intersect with information and computing theory, which happens to be all the topic.)
Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h73PsFKtIck
The bomb: "True, but since this is so, I have no proof that you are really telling me all this."
Doolittle: "That's all beside the point! The concepts are valid, wherever they originate."
First: "How can computer scientists say an expert psychologist is wrong in psychology*?"
Second: "One author is a PhD researcher and another a lawyer. These people are not qualified to debunk a systematic review of medicine."
(*Except for the parts which intersect with information and computing theory, which happens to be all the topic.)
Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h73PsFKtIck
The bomb: "True, but since this is so, I have no proof that you are really telling me all this."
Doolittle: "That's all beside the point! The concepts are valid, wherever they originate."
Follow
@hayley usually you answer in this way for saving time and energy, filtering out cranks people, i.e. not-expert people committing common naive errors. But as any heuristic, it is not infallible and you can filter out valid criticism. It is a trade-off.
As you said, the real answer should be in showing the faults in the opposite assertions. Otherwise, it is not science but cargo-cult.
