• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How “Gibson’s law” makes it hard to trust experts

SNOWFLAKE

Crazy Canuck
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
43,003
Reaction score
44,821
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The following is a bit long but makes for an interesting analysis of something called "Gibson's law."
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

It’s one of the most famous lines in poetry, and with it, Alexander Pope hits the nail on the head. We all know that one person who sees themselves as some world authority based on a single article they’ve read. They’re the keyboard preachers and cocksure dilettantes who have spent an afternoon researching a topic, and they’ll tell you exactly how it is. They’re drunk, indeed, on a little learning, and will shout at everyone to let them know.

The fact is that disagreeing with someone is easy. No matter how much of your life you’ve devoted to a subject or how many letters after your name you have earned, it takes only one fool, who’s read one Facebook post, to disagree with you. It’s this which presents the illusion of depth and complexity — as if debate means that there will be no right answer. There are two sides to everything only because saying, “You’re wrong,” doesn’t require any qualifications whatsoever. And yet, to paraphrase Friedrich Nietzsche, muddying the water will not make it deep.

“Gibson’s law” is the observation that, “For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD.” It’s mostly seen in adversarial courts of law, when two competing lawyers each will produce some heavyweight authority to prove their side of the argument. But, it need not be limited to the courtroom. It can also be a form of petulant confirmation bias.
Let’s say you meet an expert in some area, and they present a fact or argument that you simply cannot tolerate. Fuming, but unable to articulate your counterargument, you go home to Google the expert’s position. To your great annoyance, the entire first page of search results validate the expert. You still hunt, determined to be right. Nestled in the forgotten abyss of Google’s page 4, you find Dr. Clutching Straws. You drag out Dr. Straws whenever you can.

https://bigthink.com/thinking/gibsons-law-hard-trust-experts/

I love the parts I highlighted in red, so apropos on debate forums. :sneaky:
 
Last edited:
The following is a bit long but makes for an interesting analysis of something called "Gibson's law."


I love the parts I highlighted in red, so apropos on debate forums. :sneaky:
Thank you for the link to Big Think, interesting site and I enjoyed learning about "Gibson's Law." :)
 
The following is a bit long but makes for an interesting analysis of something called "Gibson's law."


I love the parts I highlighted in red, so apropos on debate forums. :sneaky:
It is a proven scientific fact that anyone can refute anything that someone has stated to be the truth.
Need a reference for that?
 
It is a proven scientific fact that anyone can refute anything that someone has stated to be the truth.
Need a reference for that?
THAT fact was actually highlighted in the article, so to repeat:
There are two sides to everything only because saying, “You’re wrong,” doesn’t require any qualifications whatsoever.
 
THAT fact was actually highlighted in the article, so to repeat:
There are two sides to everything only because saying, “You’re wrong,” doesn’t require any qualifications whatsoever.
OK, OK,
You're wrong and no reference is needed.
 
Thank you for the link to Big Think, interesting site and I enjoyed learning about "Gibson's Law." :)
It's the kind of site people who are stuck on MSM or Fox or their favorite confirmation bias sites will miss. I have a handful of sites like that saved to my desktop. It's amazing when one wants to understand a phenomenon, it CAN BE found on the internet. BS can also be found on the internet, which the author of the above article is pretty much making clear.
 
Those folks who ignore evidence contrary to their opinion always mystify me. I would be truly embarrassed if I read 4 pages of validation that I got it wrong and would NEVER again say such things because even I disproved my own opinion at that point.

I mean, what would that say about my character? That I prefer being more hateful than accurate, that it's more important to be stubborn than accurate? Wow, those are not traits I want to spend energy on developing--rather I would spend energy developing accuracy and skin thick enough to say, "Whoops, my bad, I was wrong."

This reminds me of the Native American allegory about feeding the wolves. There are two wolves in each of us--one good and one bad--whichever one you feed is the one who thrives.
 
Those folks who ignore evidence contrary to their opinion always mystify me. I would be truly embarrassed if I read 4 pages of validation that I got it wrong and would NEVER again say such things because even I disproved my own opinion at that point.

I mean, what would that say about my character? That I prefer being more hateful than accurate, that it's more important to be stubborn than accurate? Wow, those are not traits I want to spend energy on developing--rather I would spend energy developing accuracy and skin thick enough to say, "Whoops, my bad, I was wrong."

This reminds me of the Native American allegory about feeding the wolves. There are two wolves in each of us--one good and one bad--whichever one you feed is the one who thrives.
In the era of alternative facts and truth not being the truth, we have created a generation of mindless minions.
 
It is a proven scientific fact that anyone can refute anything that someone has stated to be the truth.
Need a reference for that?


You are going to have to provide some evidence that 'proves' the statement.

As I understand science? There is no such thing as a "proven scientific fact" because science is never settled.

And as noted you can "refute' anything. Refute the statement that there is a sun in near space. Just because its stated does not make it a fact. It's no more than an opinion and we know most of them stink
 
Refute the statement that there is a sun in near space. Just because its stated does not make it a fact. It's no more than an opinion and we know most of them stink
DAMN, I thought that big yellow thing in the sky was just another Chinese spy balloon!!
 
The following is a bit long but makes for an interesting analysis of something called "Gibson's law."


I love the parts I highlighted in red, so apropos on debate forums. :sneaky:
It's because human beings are instinctually conditioned to feel the need to WIN AN ARGUMENT rather than learn and grow from debate.
I am guilty of it from time to time myself and I don't always check myself either. I try, but I fail to check it early on as much as I should.

There are dozens of people on this and every other debate forum for whom winning the argument is more important than anything else.
For some, it might be the most important thing in their miserable lives, and so the actual subject of the debate isn't even important, nor is anything that they might learn from the debate.
That's the appeal of Donald Trump, for whom "might makes right" in literally EVERYTHING, because he believes that he OWNS literally EVERYTHING.

Facts don't matter, winning matters.
And it will be the death of civilization if we allow this to metastasize to its ultimate conclusion.
 
It's because human beings are instinctually conditioned to feel the need to WIN AN ARGUMENT rather than learn and grow from debate.
I am guilty of it from time to time myself and I don't always check myself either. I try, but I fail to check it early on as much as I should.

There are dozens of people on this and every other debate forum for whom winning the argument is more important than anything else.
For some, it might be the most important thing in their miserable lives, and so the actual subject of the debate isn't even important, nor is anything that they might learn from the debate.
That's the appeal of Donald Trump, for whom "might makes right" in literally EVERYTHING, because he believes that he OWNS literally EVERYTHING.

Facts don't matter, winning matters.
And it will be the death of civilization if we allow this to metastasize to its ultimate conclusion.
The human survival instinct of protecting our social acceptance amongst the tribe is much older than the human inventions of science, logic, and critical thinking. That is why one of the biggest fears for most people is public speaking. Since the human species evolved to require social cooperation for survival, being humiliated in a social setting is perceived by our brains as an imminent threat to survival capable of engaging the fight or flight response. And we all know what happens to our ability to think rationality when our adrenaline goes up. Hence, for most people, rising above this instinct and admitting we were wrong in front of others can be quite the challenge to overcome.
 
It's because human beings are instinctually conditioned to feel the need to WIN AN ARGUMENT rather than learn and grow from debate.
I am guilty of it from time to time myself and I don't always check myself either. I try, but I fail to check it early on as much as I should.

There are dozens of people on this and every other debate forum for whom winning the argument is more important than anything else.
For some, it might be the most important thing in their miserable lives, and so the actual subject of the debate isn't even important, nor is anything that they might learn from the debate.
That's the appeal of Donald Trump, for whom "might makes right" in literally EVERYTHING, because he believes that he OWNS literally EVERYTHING.

Facts don't matter, winning matters.
And it will be the death of civilization if we allow this to metastasize to its ultimate conclusion.
Thanks for being honest.
I have resisted the urge to prove that Conservatives are better for this country than Liberals. The simple fact of the matter is that anyone, like Post, can come up with examples to demonstrate otherwise.
Those tu quoque arguments really don't seem to be worth it a lot of times. Although, I do like to challenge someone to come with an example of why I might be wrong. And as my wife is fond of telling me, "Sometimes you are wrong." I accept that.
 
It's because human beings are instinctually conditioned to feel the need to WIN AN ARGUMENT rather than learn and grow from debate.
I am guilty of it from time to time myself and I don't always check myself either. I try, but I fail to check it early on as much as I should.

There are dozens of people on this and every other debate forum for whom winning the argument is more important than anything else.
For some, it might be the most important thing in their miserable lives, and so the actual subject of the debate isn't even important, nor is anything that they might learn from the debate.
That's the appeal of Donald Trump, for whom "might makes right" in literally EVERYTHING, because he believes that he OWNS literally EVERYTHING.

Facts don't matter, winning matters.
And it will be the death of civilization if we allow this to metastasize to its ultimate conclusion.


It's all ego.

We will die before admitting we are wrong.

I have found that admitting the error is where we truly learn. I posted earlier today about the "3 lives lost" at Kent State, when I KNEW it was four.

34 years of walking in sobriety where self honesty is THE most important thing that strength of character is built around being wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, only morons deny them.

Now, I do admit there are some posters in here I will never admit I was wrong, just because!
 
Those folks who ignore evidence contrary to their opinion always mystify me. I would be truly embarrassed if I read 4 pages of validation that I got it wrong and would NEVER again say such things because even I disproved my own opinion at that point.

I mean, what would that say about my character? That I prefer being more hateful than accurate, that it's more important to be stubborn than accurate? Wow, those are not traits I want to spend energy on developing--rather I would spend energy developing accuracy and skin thick enough to say, "Whoops, my bad, I was wrong."

This reminds me of the Native American allegory about feeding the wolves. There are two wolves in each of us--one good and one bad--whichever one you feed is the one who thrives.
JR,
I would never think that you are a hateful person.
Perhaps leaning a little too far the Left.
But that is not bad in itself.
And I saw "Dances with Wolves" decades ago and I believe Dunbar could have made the wolf a pet by feeding him on a regular basis.
Hell, my dog loves me because I feed her good food on a daily basis.
And she is thriving. That doesn't mean that she believes everything i say.
 
JR,
I would never think that you are a hateful person.
Perhaps leaning a little too far the Left.
But that is not bad in itself.
And I saw "Dances with Wolves" decades ago and I believe Dunbar could have made the wolf a pet by feeding him on a regular basis.
Hell, my dog loves me because I feed her good food on a daily basis.
And she is thriving. That doesn't mean that she believes everything i say.


You need to check out the latest research on dogs.

There is way more at work there than we ever expected. They can hear out heart beat. They know when we are sick. They know when someone is about to die. And, from time to time we hear of a dog having found his family 100's of miles away. We have no clue how they do that.
 
JR,
I would never think that you are a hateful person.
Perhaps leaning a little too far the Left.
But that is not bad in itself.
And I saw "Dances with Wolves" decades ago and I believe Dunbar could have made the wolf a pet by feeding him on a regular basis.
Hell, my dog loves me because I feed her good food on a daily basis.
And she is thriving. That doesn't mean that she believes everything i say.
Wow, thanks for the kind words!

The story isn't about one wolf--but two wolves. A good wolf and an evil wolf. Depending on which one you feed--that's the one that thrives.

So it's supposed to make you consider which side of your nature you're feeding--the one that is what you imagine to be the very best version of yourself, or the version of yourself that would make you ashamed of being you.

But I agree, Dunbar would have made friends with any wolf ;)
 
You need to check out the latest research on dogs.

There is way more at work there than we ever expected. They can hear out heart beat. They know when we are sick. They know when someone is about to die. And, from time to time we hear of a dog having found his family 100's of miles away. We have no clue how they do that.
You may be right. I am often amazed at how my dog reacts to certain stimuli. How they are able to get people to do what they want them to do is fascinating.
 
You need to check out the latest research on dogs.

There is way more at work there than we ever expected. They can hear out heart beat. They know when we are sick. They know when someone is about to die. And, from time to time we hear of a dog having found his family 100's of miles away. We have no clue how they do that.
I've heard of cats who can do that to. :) Recently, I was worried airport security dogs might be trained to sniff out menstrual blood so women entering anti-abortion states could be arrested for abortion travel. Leave it to humans to exploit the beauty of nature for nefarious purposes. :oops:
 
I've heard of cats who can do that to. :) Recently, I was worried airport security dogs might be trained to sniff out menstrual blood so women entering anti-abortion states could be arrested for abortion travel. Leave it to humans to exploit the beauty of nature for nefarious purposes. :oops:

The fact they use them for drugs in insult enough
 
You are going to have to provide some evidence that 'proves' the statement.

As I understand science? There is no such thing as a "proven scientific fact" because science is never settled.

And as noted you can "refute' anything. Refute the statement that there is a sun in near space. Just because its stated does not make it a fact. It's no more than an opinion and we know most of them stink
Define “near space”

You’re a good example of this concept though, I’ve seen you make many objectively false claims like the Greeks tolerated homosexuality or that the Catholic Church turned vestal virgins into nuns.
 
Define “near space”

You’re a good example of this concept though, I’ve seen you make many objectively false claims like the Greeks tolerated homosexuality or that the Catholic Church turned vestal virgins into nuns.
Okay, this is even dumber than your other post. You're on a roll.

The Sacred Band of Thebes is laughing at you from the grave.
 
Define “near space”

You’re a good example of this concept though, I’ve seen you make many objectively false claims like the Greeks tolerated homosexuality or that the Catholic Church turned vestal virgins into nuns.


Homosexuality in ancient Greece​


In classical antiquity, writers such as Herodotus,[1] Plato,[2] Xenophon,[3] Athenaeus[4] and many others explored aspects of homosexuality in Greek society. The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece amongst elite circles was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys, known as pederasty (marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their thirties commonly taking wives in their early teens).[5] Nevertheless, homosexuality and its practices were still wide-spread as certain city-states allowed it while others were ambiguous or prohibited it.[6] Though sexual relationships between adult men did exist, it is possible at least one member of each of these relationships flouted social conventions by assuming a passive sexual role according to Kenneth Dover, though this has been questioned by recent scholars. It is unclear how such relations between same-sex partners were regarded in the general society, especially for women, but examples do exist as far back as the time of Sappho.[7]

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated




Oops!

Methinks someone spoke out of turn

I never said Romans "turned' Vestial virgins into nuns, I intoned that Nuns replaced the role of ancient Rome.

It seems Ancient Greece was a little ahead of us way back when!

I suggest you read more.
 
Back
Top Bottom