|
> This article, with the thesis that good arguments are more important than data, is based on, well, a good argument – not much data. I'm not sure what you're claiming. All intellectual demonstration is a matter of rational argument. That's what proofs are: arguments. Data is not self-explanatory or demonstration. "Data" can only support arguments by first being collected, something motivated by argument, and then interpreted so that it can enter into argument as a body of propositions. > On the other hand, the work by Meehl et al. claiming pretty much the opposite, is based on, well, a lot of data, and maybe not much intuitive reasoning. I don't understand. Argument is logical demonstration. The strongest form is the deductive argument. If you don't have a logical argument, then you haven't got a demonstration. > I don't know what to believe. Fortunately, as I've grown older, I've become more comfortable with holding completely dissonant opinions in my head at the same time. Depending on what you mean, this could be good or bad. Inconsistency is not a virtue, and if there is an inconsistency between two of your beliefs, then it means you've got work to do (or at least you'll need to admit you don't know what the truth is). This requires humility, the frank acknowledgment that you're faced with an aporia that you don't know (at least not yet) how to address. It also requires patience if you are to tolerate your ignorance instead of jumping to some ersatz explanation. |