Difference between revisions of "Talk:2857: Rebuttals"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
#"However..." ("...and ''I'', for one, think that they're wrong about the whole thing!") | #"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! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.25|162.158.74.25]] 00:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) | ...well, by a very quick and dirty deconstruction. But, then again, I fully expect to be shown wrong in my delayering! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.25|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? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:43, 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. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:46, 21 November 2023
Ok, so...
- "...new evidence" (yes, possibly we can start with "...evidence", but let's start with the first contrarianism).
- "...inconvenient..." (so there's something we're saying is wrong with that new evidence?)
- "...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)
- "...the prevailing consensus..." (another layer of implied position-taking where there is something to disagree with)
- "...the backlash against..." (to which others firmly took up the contrary)
- "It's become conventional wisdom that..." (and this is a counter-contrary perspective)
- "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? 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)
