Skip to main content

View Diary: 0.1%er Latina suffers 'USA! USA!' jeers from GOP crowd (350 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But the USA USA chant did not start (0+ / 0-)

    until Fonalledas was introduced and at the podium.

    Is there an innocent explanation? Certainly. Is there a less innocent explanation? Certainly.

    Neither of us knows the real explanation.

    My argument is that given their history, the benefit of the doubt is not appropriate.

    YM varies.

    •  Let's follow this thread (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, bnasley

      This is maybe what this is about:

      My argument is that given their history, the benefit of the doubt is not appropriate
      Here's why I think that's not a good way to go.  It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you interpret everything in a way to support your own preconceptions.  What that means if applied broadly is that one becomes maximally closed off to any countervailing evidence, because confirmation bias (which this would be a form of) discounts or explains away everything that conflicts and every interpretation is made to reinforce preexisting beliefs.

      Two problems flow from that.  First, that means one can become increasingly detached from reality.  Second, if reality does change, one would be unable to respond.

      In this case, there's an innocent explanation and a less innocent one.  (as you know I find the innocent one greatly more credible, especially the history over the last few months and days) So the root of the disagreement probably stems from the approach to handling such ambiguity.  For my part, I'm such an empiricist that I try not to believe anything unless I've solid foundation, and I try to be most skeptical (consciously that is) when something appears to confirm my ideas.  

      I should fess up that I'm a former scientist, and a significant part of that training is to develop alternative explanations that run counter to ones own interpretations.  It's not an advocacy way of thinking (though there's plenty of advocates in the scientific world who seem to feel their job is to support their pet ideas come hell or high water).  

      Anyway, it's good to think about this in a new analytical framework, for me anyway.

      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

      by Mindful Nature on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:04:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem with the approach you espouse (0+ / 0-)

        is 2 fold in my view.

        First, it amounts to de facto unilaterla disarmament in thr political fight. The GOP won;t play by your rules.

        Second, it seems wrong to me at least as a way of evaluating events. Past events and attitudes matter. They inform.

        I can;t believe past findings are irrelvant to scientific thought.

        Certainly, as a lawyer, character evidence is important.

        •  I suppose (0+ / 0-)

          On the fist point, I think part of what the political difference between the right and left is the commitment to evidence.  While the right is used ot pandering with false stereotypes, the left seeks to base judgments on evidence and reality.  While it might be seen as disarmament is you opt to use bias-driven analysis (for lack of a better term), in my estimation, engaging in it undermines the basis for the strength of ones argument.  If "both sides do it" then one isn't in a position to call out both the Republicans and the media for their sloppiness and lack of commitment to evidence.  I guess I see style here as the substance of the difference.  

          That'sprobably just a difference in preferred tactics more athan anything.  Hard to say what's better, simply because the data's so complex.

          On the second, past evidence clearly matters, but while it may inform the hypotheses, it can't relieve one of the requirement to form a null hypothesis and refute it (that is, lprove your statement by disproving the alternative that there's no effect here.).  Again, that may be just a methodological difference.

          And finally, I thought character evidence wasn't admissible so as not to bias the jury into finding a defendant guilty based on who they are, rather than what they did.  That's based on 2L classes, and the bar, since I practice admin law and never get near evidentiary rules these days!  

          and thanks for turning on a dime to have an interesting conversation!

          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

          by Mindful Nature on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:10:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site