| Your statement was: > Just because there's a political party committed to believing "the sky is red" doesn't make it political to say "the sky is blue". Now you say: > In that example, I'd say neither one is political. That seems to be a contradiction. > The difference between that and the extrapolators is that the extrapolators, at least in most cases I think, are unaware that they are falling prey to an unjustified extrapolation. Yes, and I pointed out that also you do not give an explanation of why your proposed comparison is justified or not. (I do not think we need to involve the term "paradeigma" here, we can just use "comparison") >> it is about the words that are not there > But then basically you can twist anything at all into being political. I don't really see the relation between my and your statement. Very generally: putting out statements without explaining the underlying thinking/reasoning/data at least exposes you to the accusation of being political, or unscientific, sure. Giving more detail, being more transparent about your thinking, explaining underlying concepts/data makes it easier for others to follow your reasoning, but exposes you to someone pointing out a mistake in your thinking. But well, that is science. > I could say "1+1=2" and you could say "That's political! You're trying to imply something about binary genders, since you didn't explicitly throw out a disclaimer that you aren't trying to imply something about binary genders!" I do not think that "1 + 1 = 2" falls in the same category as "the reproductive behavior of humans and bacteria are comparable". Therefore, in the example you gave, the answer is actually the political statement, as it brings in the completely unrelated topic of "gender" that no one was talking about and that has nothing to do with anything, just to try to win an unwinnable argument. |