2857: Rebuttals - Revision history

Cantorfunction: Decided to be bold and rewrote the entire explanation, which was by ChatGPT and had weird prose. The contents of the table were removed, but I kept the explanation of Cueball's speech and the reference to Kuhn's book. Also marked this as incomplete.

2025-12-12T12:58:01Z

Decided to be bold and rewrote the entire explanation, which was by ChatGPT and had weird prose. The contents of the table were removed, but I kept the explanation of Cueball's speech and the reference to Kuhn's book. Also marked this as incomplete.

141.101.98.135 at 11:28, 15 December 2023

2023-12-15T11:28:15Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ tighten table

2023-11-22T22:09:40Z

‎Explanation: tighten table

172.69.195.173: /* Explanation */

2023-11-22T16:12:57Z

‎Explanation

172.71.123.96: /* Explanation */

2023-11-22T09:27:23Z

‎Explanation

172.71.123.96: /* Explanation */

2023-11-22T09:26:53Z

‎Explanation

172.71.123.96: /* Explanation */

2023-11-22T09:26:11Z

‎Explanation

172.69.134.163: /* Explanation */ same paragraph, sentence not phrase

2023-11-22T02:32:04Z

‎Explanation: same paragraph, sentence not phrase

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ merge paragraphs on same topic

2023-11-21T22:07:24Z

‎Explanation: merge paragraphs on same topic

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ more likely for rematic, per talk

2023-11-21T22:06:00Z

‎Explanation: more likely for rematic, per talk

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ==Explanation==
-<blockquote>"Most of us assume the following: That when a lot of people didn't agree with what most experts said, those experts stopped paying attention to new facts that didn't fit their ideas. But actually..."</blockquote>
+{{incomplete|Can Cueball's speech and the title text be explained better? How many levels of rebuttal is Cueball actually in?}}
-Overall, the comic offers a funny yet deep look at how scientists think and argue. It shows that in science, people often change their minds between new discoveries and what most people already believe. The character Cueball represents scientists and explains this complicated process. The comic starts by showing how scientists sometimes don't like new ideas if they don't fit with what most people already think. This happens even if the new ideas might be true. It shows a kind of tug-of-war in science: sometimes scientists are more open to new things, and other times they stick to old ideas. Also, the comic says that when people don't agree with the usual thinking, they might also ignore new facts that don't match their own ideas. Everyone in science might miss something important because they're too focused on their own beliefs.
+In the comic, [[Cueball]] is giving a lecture to present a scientific result in a long-standing field of study. He prefaces his speech by explaining the context of his research, but since the field has been around for a long time, the context is quite convoluted.
-Cueball's words in the comic are like peeling an onion in science, showing different layers of arguments and disagreements. The comic suggests that sometimes, even when scientists are trying to move away from old ideas, they might not notice new facts that actually support these old ideas. Cueball seems to agree with this view but then starts to say "however," like he's going to give a ''rebuttal'' opinion or explain the situation in a new way. Maybe Cueball will offer a new explanation about how scientists argue or say that all sides in science have good points but sometimes misunderstand each other. This could mean that the debates in science are not as simple as they seem and that everyone might have a piece of the truth.
+Here is a simplified version of what Cueball is saying:
-The title text serves as an extension of this theme, offering a linguistic maze that mirrors the complexity and sometimes absurdity of academic discourse. It whimsically encapsulates how a challenge to mainstream thought can solidify into its own dogma, necessitating further revisionist waves, in an endless cycle of intellectual evolution and revolution. This self-referential loop wittily underscores {{w|Thomas Kuhn}}'s notion of the '{{w|Structure of Scientific Revolutions}},' suggesting that what is considered revolutionary at one time may become the very dogma that future revolutions seek to overturn. The title text delights in linguistic acrobatics, stringing together a series of portmanteau and near-repetitive phrases that dance on the tongue with the finesse of a verbal gymnast. "Mainstream dogma" suggests widely accepted beliefs, but it swiftly mutates into "dogmatic revisionism," a playful jab at the stubborn insistence on reforming the norm. This revisionism doesn't just adjust the current; it becomes "mainstream dogmatism" in its own right, a new orthodoxy birthed from the rebellion. And then, with a flourish, it yields to an even more whimsically coined "rematic mainvisionist dogstream," a hilarious {{w|spoonerism}} that could leave even the most loquacious academic's head spinning. This nonsensical cascade mocks the sometimes pretentious and convoluted language that can plague scholarly communication, turning serious dialogue into a merry-go-round of terms that are as circular in progression as they are in logic. This nonsense sentence may also be mocking the way in which, when you get this many layers deep in waves of consensus and counter-consensus, all these terms start to lose any real meaning, and become mere empty labels to be thrown around as terms of deprecation or abuse between the competing factions.
+<blockquote>"Most of us now assume the following: That when a lot of people didn't agree with what most experts said, the researchers stopped paying attention to new facts that didn't fit their ideas. But actually..."</blockquote>
-{| class="wikitable"
+The "backlash" that Cueball is referring to could be from the public, other researchers in the field, or both. If at least some part of the backlash comes from other researchers, then the researchers who "ignore inconvenient new evidence" could be those who support the prevailing consensus, or those who do not. Cueball would probably be understood by his audience, who are likely other researchers in the same field, but from a layman's perspective this explanation of the context surrounding his work would be unclear and insufficient.
-! Title text term
-! (Possible) meaning
+Cueball is also likely arguing that this "conventional wisdom" is false, but it is not stated what exactly about the wisdom is false. For example, it could be that
-! Nature of the term
+* the researchers are still paying attention to new evidence that doesn't fit their ideas;
-|-
+* the evidence isn't new to the researchers;
-| Mainstream dogma
+* the new evidence actually strengthens the researchers' ideas.
-| The popular and currently unchallenged set of beliefs that comfortably flow with the academic current.
-| Real
+Here is a simplification of the title text. The words and their meanings are color-coded accordingly.
-|-
-| Dogmatic revisionism
+<blockquote> The <span style="color:#DC3232"> mainstream </span> <span style="color:#6866E5"> dogma </span> sparked a wave of <span style="color:#6866E5"> dogmatic </span> <span style="color:#17871E"> revisionism </span>, and this <span style="color:#17871E"> revisionist </span> <span style="color:#DC3232"> mainstream </span> <span style="color:#6866E5"> dogmatism </span> has now given way to a more rematic mainvisionist dogstream. </blockquote>
-| The stubborn insistence on changing established views, with a religious zeal for rewriting the scholarly scripture.
-| Unlikely combination of real words
+<blockquote> The <span style="color:#DC3232"> widely-held </span> <span style="color:#6866E5"> beliefs which people thought were indisputable </span> sparked a wave of <span style="color:#17871E"> other people revising those beliefs </span> <span style="color:#6866E5"> based on other principles also thought to be indisputable. </span> This <span style="color:#DC3232"> popular </span> <span style="color:#17871E"> tendency to revise beliefs </span> and <span style="color:#6866E5"> lay down new principles as undeniably true regardless of evidence </span> has now given way to a more rematic mainvisionist dogstream. </blockquote>
-|-
-| Revisionist mainstream
+"Rematic mainvisionist dogstream" is an example of a {{w|spoonerism}}. Here the first syllable of the words "dogmatic", "revisionist" and "mainstream" are switched: "Dogmatic" becomes "rematic" (from "revisionist"), which becomes "mainvisionist" (from "mainstream"), which becomes "dogstream" (from "dogmatic").
-| Once the avant-garde, now the new normal; the rebel ideas that have become the establishment.
-| Unlikely combination of real words
+There is some credence to the idea that scientific study is sometimes dogmatism and sometimes revisionism. In the book {{w|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} by {{w|Thomas Kuhn}}, he proposes that progress in science is described by alternating periods of "{{w|normal science}}" and revolutionary science. As the ideas put forth in the revolutionary science phase become more accepted amongst the scientific community, they can be adopted into a part of normal science. But since normal science is simply the regular work of scientists, who use a lot of procedures to verify hypotheses and eliminate false ones, it cannot be considered as dogmatism. Also, the word "revisionism" specifically refers to rewriting a common view of historical events, and not scientific theories.
 ==Transcript==

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 15 December 2023
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Explanation==		==Explanation==
−	~~{{incomplete\|Created by a REMATIC DOGSTREAM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}~~
−
	This comic provides a satirical take on the intricate layers of scientific critique and consensus. [[Cueball]] stands as a representative of the scientific community, addressing the audience with a statement that encapsulates the recursive nature of scientific debate. The comic touches on the propensity within the scientific fields to oscillate between embracing new evidence and adhering to established consensus. It reflects on the inclination to reject new findings not because they lack merit, but because they conflict with the prevailing theories that have weathered previous scrutiny and dissent. Here is what Cueball is saying, simplified:		This comic provides a satirical take on the intricate layers of scientific critique and consensus. [[Cueball]] stands as a representative of the scientific community, addressing the audience with a statement that encapsulates the recursive nature of scientific debate. The comic touches on the propensity within the scientific fields to oscillate between embracing new evidence and adhering to established consensus. It reflects on the inclination to reject new findings not because they lack merit, but because they conflict with the prevailing theories that have weathered previous scrutiny and dissent. Here is what Cueball is saying, simplified:

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 |-
 | Rematic
-| Spontaneously repeating under its own impetus,
+| Spontaneously repeating under its own impetus; or, revisionist dogma; or perhaps related to "remake" or "remix," implying a recycled, refurbished set of ideas in vogue once more.
 | Not a real word
 |-

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 |-
 | Dogmatism
-| An unshakable adherence to the new creed, now fervently preached as the one true academic gospel.
+| An unshakable adherence to the new creed, now fervently preached as the one true academic gospel. The word comes from the Greek [[wikt:δόγμα|δόγμα]] meaning ‘that which is believed’, and is unrelated to canines.
 | Real
 |-

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 | Spontaneously repeating under its own impetus,
 or
 Revisionist dogma,
 or
 perhaps related to "remake" or "remix," implying a recycled, refurbished set of ideas in vogue once more.
 | Not a real word

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 |-
 | Rematic
-| Perhaps related to "remake" or "remix," implying a recycled, refurbished set of ideas in vogue once more.
+| Revisionist dogma, or perhaps related to "remake" or "remix," implying a recycled, refurbished set of ideas in vogue once more.
 | Not a real word
 |-