= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
math_viking comments on How to debate when authority is questioned, but really not needed? - 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 (41)
In the paraphrased or hypothetical exchanges above, OP at least made a claim that could be evaluated, and the other commenters dismissed even the possibility that they had anything worthwhile to say for pretty poor reasons. They didn't make any actual argument to give any charity to. "What experience do you have with economics?" and "what solutions do you propose?" are perfectly valid questions, but the other commenters follow-up doesn't continue the discussion, it seeks to end it.
The OP made a comment that is evaluable, and comes .it as irrelevant when read uncharitably: no one is literally printing money. "What experience do you have with economics?" could charitably be read as the argument "you need to understand economics to have a worthwhile opinion on quantitative easing"