= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on Open thread, Nov. 17 - Nov. 23, 2014 - 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 (322)
I agree with what you wrote. Having said this, let's go meta and see what happens when people will use the "rules and tips" you have provided here.
A crackpot may explain their theory without using any scientific terminology, even where a scientist would be forced to use some. I have seem many people "disprove" the theory of relativity without using a single equation.
If there is a frequent myth in your field that most of the half-educated people believe, trying to disprove this myth will sound very similar to a crackpot narrative. Or if there was an important change in your field 20 years ago, and most people haven't heard about it yet, but many of them have read the older books written by experts, explaining the change will also sound like contradicting all experts.
In response to your second point, I've found "field myths" to be quite processable by everyday folk when put in the right context. The term "medical myth" seems to be in common parlance, and I've occasionally likened such facts to people believing women have more ribs than men, (i.e. something that lots of people have been told, and believe, but which is demonstrably false).
It does seem a bit hazardous to have "myths" as a readily-available category to throw ideas in, though. Such upstanding journalistic tropes as Ten Myths About [Controversial Political Subject] seem to teach people that any position for which they hold a remotely plausible counterargument is a "myth".