Menick replied originally to the evidence and research point on his blog.
Let’s look at point 2 of the Bietz manifesto. To wit, he is explaining that we have no great rules about evidence, and that we are about as sloppy with the stuff as is conceivable. (All right, I'm paraphrasing, or maybe more to the point, translating into the Coachean bile dialect). Even if some among us are neat as individuals, we certainly haven’t established any norms for the activity at large.
Yep.
First of all, as he points out, people just usually read an author’s last name. More.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
PJ Wexler comments:
ReplyDeleteThe reluctance of many LDers to argue evidence is indeed a problem for the reasons you outline.
This mindset also contributes to why LDers do a rather slipshod job when it comes to taking policy approaches to resolutions. Whatever one might say about qualitative evidence, it is far less controversial (I hope) to postulate that quantitative claims require backing. With statistics debaters may make some blurb on causation and correlation. Non statistical evidence, forget about it.
At best, LDers may have some clashing evidence, though even that is none too common. The idea of actually analytically taking apart the opponent's evidence is not that ninety percent of LDers are doing at the moment.