= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on [Video] Brainwashed - A Norwegian documentary series on nature and nurture - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (14)
I would like to know whether the Norwegian sociologists interviewed in the video are considered authorities or at least representative of mainstream in their country. So far I have seen only the first two parts, but I think the author plays fair... he shows the videos with opposing opinions to his interviewees, and allows them to defend themselves. (Which they do rather horribly. As in: "No, I don't know anything about biology, but I am nonetheless 100% sure this cannot be biologically caused. What is the evidence for my opinions? Why, I don't have any, but this is my starting position, and you failed to convince me otherwise.) But still, he could be strawmanning the whole profession of sociology by selecting its weakest members for the interviews.
So, if anyone familiar with sociology in Norway is here, could you please confirm or disprove the relevance of the interviewees' positions for the whole field of sociology in Norway?
I would be very disappointed and surprised if he were setting up strawmen.
Harald Eia (the presenter) recieved his Candidate's Degree (hovedoppgave) (= Bachelor's/Master's Degree?) in sociology according to Wikipedia. In one of Norway's talk-shows (I don't remember which) Bård Tufte Johansen, Harald's close colleague, said something along the lines of "We [Harald and Me] can not make a comedy-sketch where humans are interacting with dinosaurs, because Harald would protest that dinosaurs died out long before humans existed. [Quoted from memory!]". The point being that Harald Eia is very particular about scientific details.
He is also host of a TV-show called "Brille" (which I haven't seen myself) which according to the Norwegian Wikipedia-page is similar in concept to QI.
Being highly intelligent and strawmanning one's opponent are not mutually exclusive.
(My observations suggest a positive correlation.)
Could that be because you use the "strawman" label only for those incorrect depictions of opponent's possition that are above some minimum quality?
E.g. you wouldn't consider "they sold their souls to Devil" or "they hate our freedoms" or "they are just all stupid" or "they are simply evil" examples of the strawman fallacy, although technically they also do misrepresent the opponent. But for something to be worth the label "fallacy" it must include some minimum (albeit flawed) reasoning... and that is positively correlated with intelligence.
Mostly I associate it with an increased tendency to consider 'intellectual' debate to be a practical way to gain status and dominance (wait, I mean, an increased tendency to consider it 'fun'). From there practice and exposure to others teaches what kind of debate tactics are the most effective. Straw manning is at the top of the list. (In my observation the challenge for the debater is to judge the audience well to work out what degree of misrepresentation they can get away with in the context and go the easiest target within those bounds.)