[manigandham]

An argument regardless of (or even without) evidence would does not mean it cannot be discussed. That is the fundamental issue of the original post.

However, you are clearly misquoting that article and Bloom's statements, why not just use the actual entire paragraph:

"But even if you accept this argument, there is a lot more to life than public policy. Consider our everyday interactions with our parents and children, with our partners and friends. Consider also certain special relationships, such as that between doctor and patient or therapist and client. Empathy might not scale up to the policy level, but it seems an unalloyed good when it comes to these intimate relationships—the more the better.

I used to believe this, but I am no longer sure."

Bloom's statement is that life includes things beyond policy like personal relationships, where more empathy is always seen as good, however he is no longer sure about that and then goes on to describe why in much more detail.

[aaron-lebo]

Yes, and if a scientist is choosing words like "no longer sure", that's not a really strong indicator of belief in it, certainly not a good argument for policy.

If an argument doesn't have evidence, it has less value than something that does, that's why the way people are still talking about it like it's something more interesting than a 4chan post is confusing.

[manigandham]

As I said, Bloom goes on to describe his position in much more detail. Have you read the entire article?

I'm not sure why you are so adamant about evidence here. Bloom is just one example of someone who did some research and put together an argument, which was then cited by Damore for a single point in a larger piece. I do believe that particular point is valid (as it's completely accepted in popular culture) but regardless the greater issue is that it can be discussed at all.

You seem to be saying that it shouldn't be discussed at all... because there's no evidence for it? People talk endless about many things that have no evidence and are purely conjecture, just to start exploring a certain perspective (which usually comes before the hard scientific research). Why is that a problem?

[aaron-lebo]

Nobody is saying not to discuss it, but if you want to have a nuanced and productive discussion, provide better evidence.

[oj-lappi]

You keep dodging. His point was that you misquoted Bloom to create a perception that he disagrees with Damore.

Also this is more interesting since its an insider opinion by an educated man. You are trying to dismiss Damore outright without counterargument. That's not productive.

[aaron-lebo]

He doesn't disagree with him, but "not so sure" isn't a ringing endorsement of anything. It suggests that Bloom is unsure, so if Bloom is unsure about the value of empathy, how strongly can it support Damore? We don't know because Damore doesn't explain it, just links to it as evidence. Again, that's not how you do research.

Not looking to keep this discussion going, take care.

[oj-lappi]

The "not sure" part is about the role of empathy concerns intimate relationships, not formal ones.

You cited an separate but sinilar part of the argument from the wrong side.

When it comes to policy, it is generally accepted that empirical/statistical evidence is a better tool for building an organisation than empathy.