Perhaps, with his requirement #3, Nick was revealing himself to be a closet postmodernist. This guy:
https://youtu.be/tnQtZfiNs8w?t=685 cites Latour as making the case that #2 is inadequate. Something more is needed for us to heed warnings of crisis. And he uses Greta Thunberg as an example. He has some other enlightening comments earlier in the video providing some (weak) justification for the neo-reactionists, similar to my (also weak) defenses of them. It's interesting to me because it does exactly what many of us purport to *want* ... common ground with which to have a discussion with the right wing wackos in our lives. On 11/25/20 4:49 PM, ⛧ glen wrote: > Well, at least we got rid of requirement #3. But I maintain that your > requirement for logic is too ambiguous to defend. So if you'd drop that, we'd > agree that "facts" are the only requirement for productive dialogue. On 11/25/20 10:46 AM, [email protected] wrote: > 1. A commitment to logic. Otherwise inconsistencies don’t hurt, right? > 2. A commitment to the possibility of facts and a desire to find them. > 3. A commitment to respectful dialogue, avoidance of contempt-speech, and an > honest attempt to Steelman (/sensu Ropellae) /the other guy’s argument. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
