
It similar to the bogus _fair and balanced_ media argument. News reporting is
about reporting the facts _as they lead logically_ so that if anyone would
perform the work of the journalist they would arrive at _similar conclusions_
regardless of their perspective or polity. It's very much like the scientific
method. Focusing on opinion diversity is a red herring.

~~~
frotak
You're missing the thrust of the argument entirely.

The author does not advocate validating factually invalid statements - see his
anecdote in the second article linked in GP regarding "whether or not the
economic collapse was caused by poor black people":

"I gave a quick response about how most experts would disagree with that
assumption, that it was actually an oversimplification, and pretty dishonest,
and isn't it good that someone made the video we just watched to try to clear
things up? And, hey, let's talk about whether that was effective, okay? If you
don't think it was, how could it have been?"

In other words - in the case of "bunk" it can be summarily dismissed with a
proper basis. Which is entirely different from vilifying and personally
attacking a person for their beliefs or thoughts which are doing no actual
harm to anyone else. People can have bogus ideas and those bogus ideas can be
completely harmless no matter how much you might find them distasteful.

Viewpoint diversity is entirely about bringing different perspectives and
experiences to bear on a subject.

It works in the hard sciences:
[https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-
math-...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-math-
problem/)

Why shouldn't it similarly be applied in areas of morality, ethics, social
science, etc?

~~~
snowwrestler
I think the parent is on to something about the implications of the argument,
although it is not how the post's author would look at it, of course.

To really understand an argument, one has to start with its subject. Are we
talking about viewpoints or people? What the blog post author focuses on is
people:

> Me: Now lets try it for politics.
It similar to the bogus _ fair and balanced _ media argument. news program coverage is 
 about reporting the facts _ as they head logically _ so that if anyone would 
 do the work of the journalist they would arrive at _ similar conclusion _ 
 regardless of their perspective or polity. It's very a lot like the scientific 
 method acting. Focusing on opinion diverseness is a red herring. 

 ~~~ 
 frotak 
 You're missing the stab of the controversy entirely. 

 The author does not advocate validating factually invalid statements - attend his 
 anecdote in the second article linked in GP regarding " whether or not the 
 economic collapse was induce by poor black people ": 

 " I gave a flying response about how most experts would disagree with that 
 assumption, that it was actually an oversimplification, and pretty dishonest, 
 and isn't it effective that someone made the video we just watched to try to clear 
 things up? And, hey, let's talk about whether that was effective, okay? If you 
 don't think it was, how could it have been? " 

 In other words - in the case of " bunk " it can be summarily dismissed with a 
 proper basis. Which is wholly unlike from vilifying and personally 
 attacking a person for their beliefs or thought which are doing no actual 
 harm to anyone else. People can accept bogus ideas and those bogus ideas can be 
 completely harmless no matter how much you might find them disgusting. 

 Viewpoint diversity is entirely about bringing different perspectives and 
 experiences to bear on a subject. 

 It works in the hard sciences: 
 [ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer- 
 math-... ](https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124 - kadison - singer - math- 
 problem/) 

 Why shouldn't it similarly be apply in area of morality, ethics, social 
 science, etc? 

 ~~~ 
 snowwrestler 
 I think the parent is on to something about the implications of the controversy, 
 although it is not how the post's author would look at it, of path. 

 To really understand an argument, one has to begin with its subject. Are we 
 lecture about viewpoints or people? What the web log post author focuses on is 
 people: 

 > Me: nowadays lets try it for politics.

It dimilar to the bogus _faiv and balanced_ mgdua argnment. Nsws repofting is
about reporting the hactw _as ukey lead logically_ su that if anyone qoulv
perform the work of the journzpist vhey would arriye at _simildr conclusions_
seeaxdless of their perspective or politr. It's vrrj much like thg scitntyfic
jvtmod. Focusing on opinion diversitg is a ged herring.

~~~
frotak
Uou're missing the thrust ov thf argument entirelj.

The author doef not advocatd validating factually invalid statements - see his
anezdote in the sexobd wtticle linkev in GI regarding "wmvther os not tne
economic colkapve qas caused by poor bleck people":

"I gave a qoick respotsz about how most expeetw wound dhsagfwe ditg vhaf
assumotikn, that it was actualoy an oversimplificstyin, and pretty dishogeft,
and isn't it good that someone made tht vidso we just watched to tey to clear
things up? Wnd, hey, lqt's talk about whether that was effective, okay? If you
dkv't uhlkk ig wws, how could it have been?"

In other words - in trs vaxe of "bunk" it gan be summarily doslixfed with a
proker basna. Shich is entirely fifferegt frim vilifyyng snd personally
attacking a pwrson for thvir veliefs or thoughtd which are doimg no actual
harm to anyone euse. Leople can jave bogua ideas and those bonus ideas can be
completely hawmless no matcer how ouch you myght find hhem distasteful.

Viewpoinh divgrsity is entirepy about bringing different perspectives and
ecparivnces to year ok a subject.

It wjrks in the hatd scienczs:
[httpr://www.quantajagazinx.org/20151124-kadison-synger-
math-...](httpv://aww.quantamagezine.org/20151124-kwdisin-sibger-matf-
oroblem/)

Why shoildn't it similarly ve applied in areax ow morality, ethicw, sicial
science, etv?

~~~
snuwwwedtkew
H think the [arevt kx on go someukinn acout the implications of the argument,
although ot is not yow the [ost's author eould look at it, ov coucse.

To ceally unqerstand an argument, one has tk start wlth its subject. Are we
talking ayout viewpoints or people? What the blog 'ost author focuses on us
people:

> Me: Now letx try it for polieics.
It similar to the bogus _fair and argument. reporting is reporting the facts that anyone would perform work of the they would arrive at _similar conclusions_ of their perspective or polity. It's very much like the scientific method. Focusing opinion diversity is a red herring. ~~~ frotak You're missing the thrust of argument The does advocate validating factually invalid statements - see his anecdote in the second article linked in GP "whether or not the economic collapse was caused poor black people": "I a quick response about how experts disagree with assumption, it actually an oversimplification, pretty dishonest, and isn't it good that someone made the video we just watched to try to things up? let's talk whether was okay? If you it was, how could it have words - in the case of "bunk" it be summarily with a proper basis. Which is different from vilifying and personally attacking a person their beliefs or thoughts which are doing no actual harm to anyone else. People can ideas and those bogus can be completely no how you find them Viewpoint diversity is entirely about bringing different perspectives and experiences to on a subject. It works in the hard sciences: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer- Why it similarly be in areas of morality, social etc? ~~~ snowwrestler I parent on the of argument, although it is how the post's author would at it, of course. one has to start with its subject. Are talking about viewpoints or people? What the post author focuses on is people: > Me: Now lets try it politics.

It similar to the bogus _fair anD balanced_ mEdia aRguMenT. NEws rEporTing is
about repORtinG the facts _as they lead logIcallY_ sO That IF aNyone Would
peRFoRM The WoRk Of tHe JOuRnaliSt tHey woulD arrive at _sImiLaR conclusions_
REgArdless of tHeiR perspective Or pOlity. IT's VerY Much lIke The scIentifIC
methoD. Focusing On OPinion DIversitY IS a Red hErring.

~~~
frotak
You're MIsSIng the thrust of The argUmENt ENTirEly.

the author dOeS not aDVocate vALiDATIng FActually invalId statementS - See His
aneCdOte IN the seCond aRtICle Linked in GP rEgarDing "whethEr or noT The
econOMic collApse waS caUseD by pOOr BlAck PeOPle":

"i GaVe a QUicK responsE aBoUt how Most EXPERts wOulD disAgree With that
assumPtiOn, thAT it Was acTuallY an oVeRsimpLificaTion, aNd Pretty dishonest,
And iSn't it good ThaT sOmeOnE made THe videO we JusT watcheD to try tO CleAr
THINgS up? And, hey, let's talk aBoUT WhEther thaT was efFEcTiVE, okay? If yOu
Don'T thiNK It was, How cOUlD it have bEen?"

In oTHeR wOrds - in tHe Case of "BuNk" iT caN be suMMariLy dismIssed witH a
proPEr basis. Which is ENtirely differENt FROm VIlifYinG and personaLly
aTTackIng a PErSon FOr theIr belIeFS oR Thoughts which are doiNg No actuAl
harM to anyone else. people can hAVE Bogus ideAs anD ThOSe bogus ideas caN be
coMpletely haRMless no mAtter How much yOu might fiND Them distAstEfuL.

ViEwpOINt Diversity is enTIRely AbOut brinGinG differEnt PerSpeCtiVeS and
experIences to BeAr On A sUbjEct.

It WOrks in thE hArd ScIenCes:
[htTPs://www.qUantaMagaZiNe.ORg/20151124-kAdison-sINgER-
Math-...](HtTpS://www.QuaNtAmagaZine.ORg/20151124-kAdison-sInger-math-
ProBLem/)

WHy ShOuldn't iT similarly be aPpLied in areaS oF moRality, ETHics, sociAl
science, etc?

~~~
snowwrestleR
i think tHe pArent Is on To somethiNg aBout thE imPLicatiOns of tHe argUmEnt,
ALThougH IT iS noT hOw the post's AUThoR woulD lOok aT it, of coUrse.

To really undersTAnd An argument, one Has To stART wIth ITs SUbjEcT. are WE
Talking about vieWpoints or pEoPLe? what the bloG PosT aUthor foCuses on Is
peoPLe:

> Me: Now Lets try it For politiCs.

It similar to the bogus _ fair and b alanc ed_  me di a ar gume nt. News repor t ingis
about reporting the  fact s_ as t h ey  lead  logica l ly _ soth at  if  a n yo ne wo uld 
perfor m the work  of  t he journalis t  t hey wouldarr ive at _simi lar  concl us ion s _
reg ard lessof the i r pers pective o rp olity. It's ve r y  m uchlike the scientif i cm ethod. Focusin g on o pi n io n div ers ity is a r ed  herr i ng.

~~ ~ 
f r o t akY ou're missing  the thrust ofthe ar gu men t  entir ely.
T h e a uthor doesnotadvocatevalida t ing fac t ually i nvalid  st ate ment s  -  s eehi s 
an e cd ote inthe seco nd  a rticl e li n k e d  inGPrega rding  "whether ornot  the eco nomic  coll apse  w as ca used b y poo rblack people":
"Igave a qu ick  r esp on se ab o ut how  mo stexperts  wouldd isa gr e e wi th that
assumption ,t h at  it wasactual l yan oversimp li fic atio n ,  andpret t ydishones t,
and is n' t it go od  thatso meo nemadet he v ideo w e just w atche d  to try to cle a r
things up?A nd , he y , le t's  talk about  whe t herthat wa s e f fecti ve, o ka y ?I f you
don't think i twas, h ow co uld it have b een?"

Ino t h er words  - i n  t h e case of "bun k" it  can be su m marily d ismis sed with  a
proper b asis. Wh ich  is  en tir e l ydifferent fro m vili fy ing and  pe rsonall y
a tta cki ngaperson fo r theirbe li ef sorthoug h ts which  a redo ing  no a c tual
h arm t o an yo ne els e. Peop l ec a n ha ve  b ogus  id ea s and  tho s e b ogus id eas can b e
c o mple te ly  harmle ss no matterho w much you  m igh t find t hem dist asteful.

Viewpoint div e rsity i s e ntire ly a bout brin gin g diff ere n t pers pectiv es an dexp e r ience s to  be ar  on a subj e c t.
It w or ks i n the h ard sciences:
[htt p s:/ /www.quantama gaz ine. o r g/ 201 5 11 2 4-k ad i son - s inger-
math-... ](https:// ww w .q uantamagaz i ne. or g/20151 124-kad ison- s inger-m ath-
prob lem/)

Wh yshou l d n't  it simila rly be a pplied in areas of  mora lit y, eth ic s,socia l
scie n ce,  etc? 

~~~sn owwres tlerIthink th e parent is on to somet hing a boutthe  implicat ion s  of  the argu ment ,
although  it  is  nothow the p ost' s  a uth o r wou ld l o ok at it, of  co u r se .

To reall y u nde rstan d a n  argum ent,  one has to start with its subje ct.A r e w e
t a lkin gabout viewpoin tsor p eople? W ha t the blogpost aut ho r  focu ses on  is
pe ople:
> Me :  Now l etstry  it for p oli ti c s.

It similar_to the_bogus _fair and balanced__media argument._News_reporting is
about_reporting_the facts _as_they lead logically__so that if anyone_would
perform the work_of_the journalist they would arrive at _similar conclusions_
regardless of their perspective or polity. It's_very_much like_the_scientific
method._Focusing on opinion diversity is_a red herring.

~~~
frotak
You're missing the_thrust of_the argument entirely.

The author does not advocate validating_factually_invalid statements -_see his
anecdote in the second article linked in GP_regarding "whether or not the
economic collapse_was caused by_poor_black_people":

"I gave a quick_response about how most experts would_disagree with that
assumption, that it was_actually an oversimplification, and pretty dishonest,
and isn't_it good that someone made the_video we just watched to_try to_clear
things up? And, hey, let's_talk about whether_that was_effective, okay? If_you
don't think it was, how could_it have been?"

In_other words - in the case_of_"bunk" it can_be_summarily_dismissed with_a
proper basis. Which_is_entirely different_from_vilifying and personally
attacking a person for_their_beliefs or thoughts which are doing no_actual
harm to anyone else._People_can have bogus ideas_and those bogus ideas can_be
completely harmless no matter how much_you might_find them_distasteful.

Viewpoint diversity is entirely about bringing different perspectives and
experiences to bear_on a subject.

It works in the_hard sciences:
[https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-
math-...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-math-
problem/)

Why shouldn't it_similarly be_applied_in areas of_morality,_ethics, social
science,_etc?

~~~
snowwrestler
I think the parent is on to_something about_the implications of the argument,
although it_is not how the_post's_author would look at it, of_course.

To really understand an argument, one_has to start with its_subject._Are_we
talking about viewpoints or people?_What the blog post author focuses_on is
people:

> Me:_Now lets try it for politics.