[wpietri]

Exactly. The essay is quite specific about why the reasoning is bad. Sandifer's breakdown makes clear why I think Siskind's work is often in the category of "not even wrong". [1] To be wrong, one has to be clear, specific, and coherent. And I said, I don't think it's an accident that Siskind is murky. It serves his political purpose.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[phnofive]

I almost agree, but I thought being NEW excluded self-awareness, as that’s more of a Gish gallop (as mentioned in TFA). The problem with taking one of those on earnestly is as I mentioned in the neighbor.

[wpietri]

I have no idea what "thought being NEW excluded self-awareness" could mean here, and I am equally befuddled by what you think is more of a Gish gallop, and am not confident you understand what one is.

[phnofive]

I don’t think an author can ‘not even wrong’ intentionally - if it is intentional, then it would be something like a Gish gallop, which Sandifer describes another SSC essay as.

I don’t necessarily agree, but I understand why she’d think so.

[wpietri]

It is quite easy to be "not even wrong" intentionally. Bullshitter often are, in that truth is irrelevant.

A good example comes from Cialdini's "Influence". He describes a study where they had someone come up to somebody using a library copier and ask to use it. Compliance went up significantly if the asker gave a reason, even if that reason was, "because I need to make some copies." That statement obviously ads no new information; the circularity makes it invalid as an argument. But it's effective persuasion. It's not even wrong, because it doesn't rise to the level of trying to make a decent argument.

Another clear example is America's foremost bullshiter, Trump. He clearly doesn't care about being right. His goal is not to make an intellectually coherent argument. He cares about influence. Like Siskind, his goal is manipulation, not the shedding of light.