Re: A discussion on TFES forum
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:39 pm
Sorry if my response is somewhat uninformed, I've spent nearly all of my time studying historical linguistics. I don't know what to say, I mean, I just don't see why would my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms be so obviously wrong, as Dubravka Ivsic and Mate Kapovic claim. I mean, it's possible that I am just somehow misreading everything, but it seems less and less likely more I read about it.
Why should it be important for me to do more research? No matter how much I study, I cannot know a decent portion of nutrition science or sociology (or whatever science is supposed to say what would happen in an anarchy). What's important is to have a method to make reasonably certain conclusions based on what we actually know.
That's what "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." is all about. If somebody makes an extraordinary claim such as "Vegetarianism would, in the long run, cause genetic mutations that would make us more vulnerable to heart disease." and fails to provide convincing evidence (such as evidence that most of the scientists in the relevant fields agree on that), we have no choice but to dismiss the claim as little more than nonsense fear-mongering. And if somebody makes an extraordinary claim such as "If there were no police, many people would get a gun and start randomly shooting people around.", and fails to provide convincing evidence, we have no choice but to dismiss the claim as little more than nonsense fear-mongering.
http://www.independent.org/publications ... asp?id=279
And how is saying that different from saying "You just haven't read on it enough!", known as the Courtier's Reply?You're just being very very lazy.
Why should it be important for me to do more research? No matter how much I study, I cannot know a decent portion of nutrition science or sociology (or whatever science is supposed to say what would happen in an anarchy). What's important is to have a method to make reasonably certain conclusions based on what we actually know.
That's what "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." is all about. If somebody makes an extraordinary claim such as "Vegetarianism would, in the long run, cause genetic mutations that would make us more vulnerable to heart disease." and fails to provide convincing evidence (such as evidence that most of the scientists in the relevant fields agree on that), we have no choice but to dismiss the claim as little more than nonsense fear-mongering. And if somebody makes an extraordinary claim such as "If there were no police, many people would get a gun and start randomly shooting people around.", and fails to provide convincing evidence, we have no choice but to dismiss the claim as little more than nonsense fear-mongering.
Again, how do you know? You are aware of the fact that some Nobel Prize winning economists, such as Milton Friedman, spoke against FDA (which you used as an "obvious" example where regulation is good in the other thread), right?professionals in government and economics recognize the importance of regulation (IOW anarchism is not a good idea).
http://www.independent.org/publications ... asp?id=279