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

[EMNofSeattle]

In other words, you have nothing and have been beaten.

No, you have nothing. Telling me to read Wikipedia articles and track down all your foot notes means you haven’t read them and just believe a foot note means a statement is true

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

No, you have nothing. Telling me to read Wikipedia articles and track down all your foot notes means you haven’t read them and just believe a foot note means a statement is true

“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.

How "Gibson's law" makes it hard to trust experts

"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." In other words, Gibson's law says you can find an expert to say anything on any topic.

bigthink.com

Man oh man, the article couldn't have been more right. Your statements are living proof.

 

[Peter]

I knew Debbie Gibson was famous but I had no idea she became so popular you let her pass her own law.

Good for her.

 

[Napoleon]

There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread. First, Ancient Greece cannot be viewed as a monolithic entity. Not all of the Ancient Greek city-States were open to the idea of pederasty and Thebes’ claim to being the originator of it was held against them. Second, pederasty was a practice heavily moderated by social conventions even in city-States which permitted the practice.

These arrangements were not viewed as overtly homosexual (which was universally frowned upon). They served a practical transactional purpose in satisfying the sexual desires of aristocratic men without risking the lives of their wives in a time when child birth was a leading killer of women. And this was perhaps less a care for the well-being of the woman than the economic and political alliances that aristocratic women facilitated via marriage. Even the sexual position was socially required to reflect the social status of each party. Social and moral stigma was attached to being the..catcher..in this arrangement (Fast forward to Rome and you’d find Julius Caesar being savaged by the aristocratic rumor mill for allegedly being the submissive in such an arrangement).