| Thanks. > The problem with all these questions is that the cost of answering them is an order of magnitude greater (more, actually) than the cost of posing them. No, I don’t think so. Requesting clarification and/or evidence when someone makes a claim like that is not unreasonable. It’s (1) ensuring everyone’s on the same page to avoid pointless misunderstandings, and (2) upholding the burden of proof, i.e. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Genuine discussion would be impossible without these two things. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, they should have to spend time doing the necessary research and presenting it. > I encourage you to open your mind. I see nothing uncivil about this. > Can you not read? > The only one being a jerk here is you. Neither of these appear in the comments you linked to. > and second because facts can also be weapons; it depends on how they're used. Who gets to decide whether “facts are used as weapons”, and what does that even mean? This is veering into dangerous territory and I’m surprised to hear you think this way. > Re the GP: taking someone to task for using the word 'kvetch' is cheap and has overtones. I did mean to take them to task for using the word “kvetching”. Because debate/critiquing/disagreement is not “kvetching”, and it’s absolutely unfair for people to characterize it as such. Debate is essential to science. There’s nothing “cheap” about that. |
Of course facts can be used as weapons. When one middle schooler points out the physical awkwardness of another, the more factual it is, the more cruel it is. "I'm only stating facts" is an evasion—why those facts and not others? There are infinitely many facts. The ones to mention don't select themselves; we do that, and there's a lot more going on in us than just "facts".