= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Cold fusion: real after all? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (103)
Not my cuppa. First paragraph:
I don't believe in LENR either, but if you're going to write a skeptical article on it, the factual refutation should come before the mockery. The right to mock has to be earned, not stolen.
This is not the level of info that anyone who's read the above main article should be interested in.
This is a common issue with how RationalWiki is written in general. In defense of their writing style, it is written in a way that will get more people to listen. If you are already talking to the highly rational, you'd be correct. But for a lot of people if they get something with zero humor up front they'll just click the little red x.
People will also click the little red x if they suspect they're being mocked, which will happen in all the important cases: when the reader actually considers believing in cold fusion or what have you.
Is that obvious? The people who will consider themselves to be personally being mocked will be the people who are already strongly believe. But those people are the ones where articles like this are least likely to have any impact on anyways. If one is aiming at the potentially credulous rather than the believer, that shouldn't be an issue.
I believe I may be said to know something about humorous writing. It is not necessary to violate rules of rational discourse in order to have it.