Talk:2857: Rebuttals

Ok, so...

1. "...new evidence" (yes, possibly we can start with "...evidence", but let's start with the first contrarianism).
2. "...inconvenient..." (so there's something we're saying is wrong with that new evidence?)
3. "...led researchers to ignore..." (maybe could fold in with the inconvenience, but arguably ignoring is a 'third way' step in sidelining it, not even disagreeing)
4. "...the prevailing consensus..." (another layer of implied position-taking where there is something to disagree with)
5. "...the backlash against..." (to which others firmly took up the contrary)
6. "It's become conventional wisdom that..." (and this is a counter-contrary perspective)
7. "However..." ("...and I, for one, think that they're wrong about the whole thing!")

...well, by a very quick and dirty deconstruction. But, then again, I fully expect to be shown wrong in my delayering! 162.158.74.25 00:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't the inconvenient new evidence be the justification for the backlash against the prevailing concensus, not the reason why the new evidence is ignored? I'm not going to try to explain this comic, I'm lost already. Barmar (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I impressed myself by correctly remembering that the author of "Structure of Scientific Revolution" was Thomas Kuhn. It was assigned reading in a philosophy of science class I took over 40 years ago, but I haven't had to think about it much since then. Barmar (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking for a way to depict the Title Text: "The mainstream dogma sparked a wave of dogmatic revisionism, and this revisionist mainstream dogmatism has now given way to a more rematic mainvisionist dogstream." Too garish? 172.69.79.142 00:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)