Re: Strawman/Steelman

Posted by gepr on Jan 29, 2021; 10:51pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Strawman-Steelman-tp7600502p7600518.html

At first I agreed with your 3 priorities. But as I worked on some other stuff, I think some doubt has crept in. Each of the bullets has some uncertainty around it. Some things are pretty much but not entirely *certainly* correct. But most things have high uncertainty. Evidence can be slight, plentiful, coherent, contradictory, etc. (E.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/28/the-uncensored-guide-to-oumuamua-aliens-and-that-harvard-astronomer/?sh=a5319286abec) And it's difficult for any one clique to know when some thing is novel/new or unique. I have that problem all the time (e.g. Steve's pointing out that the DoD had this long-standing definition of Strawman that I knew nothing about ... new to me, but not new.)

I suppose you can simply add qualifiers:

1) are mostly correct
2) have coherent evidence
3) are novel for some given context

Re: Weinstein's Evergreen mistake, I think he screwed up all 3 of them and refused to admit he made any mistake.

On 1/29/21 2:00 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I would say to boost signals concerning claims that,
>
> 1) are correct
> 2) have evidence
> 3) are novel
>
> Other types of signals can be attenuated.   Realistically, the media follows this principle above all else:
>
> 4) have an audience

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/