最高相似度示例 · 非人工确认结果
目标片段比如说有时候在一些有争议的社会事件上，我经常看到有人在贴我的播客，然后下面的一些高赞评论的评价，不是我的观点本身是否值得反驳，而是在询问我是什么成分，我带着什么任务来说，这些话这个话背后的逻辑和我刚才描绘的黑五类有区别吗？如果我的成分不好，那我应该有说话的权利吗？我觉得这不光是一个在知识上很懒惰的攻击别人的方式。因为他选择的是逃避论点本身，他选择的是攻击提出这个论点的人的身份和立场。
来源片段badly intentioned. Well, yeah. So for me, it's especially when the person isn't an intelligence researcher, right? So the thing is like, I was talking about- And that's just like the one, yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Well, we were talking about Charles Murray. And we were talking about like, well, what exactly is this claim? And I'm like, I don't know. I haven't read the bell curve, to be honest. I mean, you know, did I listen to like part of a podcast once where he sets them stuff? Like I actually don't know what the claim is. And so for me, I'm just willing to say like, listen, I actually don't know that research. But you know, my general view is that we shouldn't be setting our, you know, our moral vision on which group differences may or may not exist on IQ level, but I'm not an expert. And for other people who aren't an expert, but they're
查看片段位置
4 个展示片段 · 共 5 个展示片段（含上方示例）— 点击展开
S1：4 个窗口回退
来源片段
out many of the methodological flaws in those studies and admonishing me to be more cautious in toting the results of social sciences that may not be as solid as people imagine. So yeah, we get into that in some detail in this one. And I'll just quickly clarify my own view. I do find the idea of implicit bias plausible, but I find it plausible because of history, particularly in the case of the US American history. And I find it plausible
目标片段
但是张某某又在五年之后的另外一篇论文，反驳王某某的这个论文的方法论不够客观，因为他调查的样本仅仅是来自于文理学院大一的新神。因为他们学历过高，导致了这个调查样本中的人，百分之百都自认为是女权主义的左倾进步人士，所以这个样本有偏差。这个结论的方法论有误，我们目前还无法得出剖腹骂街，算不算言论自由。这个问题的社会科学结论，这种文明的讲话模式，我不知道大家在生活中预见的多不多，反正我在我的学术圈就是知识分子，这个圈子里面还是非常常见的。
来源片段
is this just makes sense to me? But like, I'm self professed about as far from an expert on like, the philosophy of science as you're going to get. And it seems like when you're saying, let's publish negative results, let's, you know, set it up beforehand and restrict researcher degrees of freedom, I think was the phrase you used. Is there like an argument against this? Or is it just like institutional inertia? Is there like a reason people would say no, well, we do it 95% of the time this other way for x, y and z reasons? I guess it's just
目标片段
但是，哪怕对于受过教育的人来说，我认为这种把价值问题的争辩扁平化成方法论的争辩，是学者和知识分子的挥刀子宫，他们放弃了自己的政治责任。当然，这也是他们知识上的懒惰，并不愿意去刨根究底的反问。凭什么科学方法论有资格从自然世界延伸到人类社会，成为衡量人类社会的标准。所以吉利咕噜说了这么多播客，接下来我要说三个，我认为在知识分子吵架中最常见的下三滥的套路。
来源片段
that, I would need even more evidence, like really, really good evidence and like highly replicated evidence and so forth, not just my hunch that it's all a conspiracy. That's fair. That's like down at the bottom of the evidence pile. So what I would say is, scientific consensus has have often been wrong. If you look throughout the history of science, all sorts of things were thought to be true and scientifically validated and so forth. And later, we think that that's probably not the case. I think it really is true that in some strict sense, we don't know for sure lots of stuff that a lot of people take for granted. But that might be as good as we can know until we, and we should know it defeasibly. We should know it being open to the
目标片段
当然，这也是他们知识上的懒惰，并不愿意去刨根究底的反问。凭什么科学方法论有资格从自然世界延伸到人类社会，成为衡量人类社会的标准。所以吉利咕噜说了这么多播客，接下来我要说三个，我认为在知识分子吵架中最常见的下三滥的套路。一旦他们使用了这个套路，在绝大多数时候一个开诚布公的真诚开放，并且激烈的碰撞的辩论就已经变得不可能了。而且我觉得如果我们想要建立一个真正健康的讨论空间。我们想要听到的不是一个声音，而是多个声音，而且是相互彼此尊重的多个声音。
来源片段
issue at all. Yes. This is such an important issue. I was talking to somebody about it just yesterday. So, yeah, this is this is really important. The first thing I would say is that when you're making a moral or a political argument, you should try really hard not to tether it to any contested empirical claim, because then what's going to happen is that you're going to have an interest in what the data show. And you should you don't want that to be the case, because then if the data turn out not to support your view, you're fucked because now your moral argument doesn't run run through. So don't rest your moral argument on it. One case I've argued this about is the
目标片段
来伤害他辩论的哪方OK首先我想说，一个最经典的下三滥的套路，那就是面对你的对手，你不去正面的攻击他的论点，你不去考虑他的观点，是否有道理，你选择去攻击他的立场，你选择去质疑对手的立场，你选择通过挖掘出对方的立场，并不是那么纯洁，来使这一整个论点因此存疑，甚至蒙羞。其实，这是公共政治辩论最经典最古老的下三滥套路。在我的阅读经历中，他最早出现在古希腊修西底德罗伯奔尼萨战争中最核心的一场辩论Cleon和Diodotus这两个雅典政治家在雅典人面前，