Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by danenania 1757 days ago
I don't see how any of that would make him dogmatic. Dogma implies a shared set of principles that are followed without question. His beliefs seem to be an idiosyncratic patchwork stitched together from personal experience and a diverse set of influences. And while he is attached to certain beliefs, as you say, he'll also change his mind easily in other areas. Whether or not you agree or disagree with his specific opinions, that's just about the polar opposite of dogma.
1 comments
nemothekid 1757 days ago
>Dogma implies a shared set of principles that are followed without question.

FWIW, Merriam Webster defines dogma as a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. That's the definition I was using, that I thought was more colloquial. Simply holding a strongly help opinion on shaky grounds is dogmatic. I don't believe that definition is at odds with what I'm describing.

link
danenania 1757 days ago
Um, you cherry-picked a single bullet point out of that definition, and not even the first one.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

1a. something held as an established opinion, especially a definite authoritative tenet.

1b. a code of such tenets.

1c. a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

2. a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.

Also, when has Joe Rogan ever claimed, or even implied, that his beliefs are "authoritative"? He constantly does the opposite.

link
nemothekid 1757 days ago
Even if I cherry picked the one I thought was most clearest, none of them are even imply a shared set of principles that are followed without question, nor do any of the definitions under (1) contradict what I was saying.

>Also, when has Joe Rogan ever claimed, or even implied, that his beliefs are "authoritative"?

If you literally watch JRE today he does with regards to keto.

link
danenania 1757 days ago
He can speak with legitimate authority on diet, exercise, martial arts, and other similar topics. He knows more about those things than 99% of people. The point is he doesn't claim authority on topics related to politics and science where he's out of his depth, or at least does it a lot less often than typical partisan commentators.

You seem to be reading a different definition than I am, but ok /shrug.

link