Transgender Thread.

[Danoff]

It isn't.

ChatGPT take on this video:

"The video discusses how academia, particularly in physics, is influenced by the need for grant money. Sabine Hossenfelder shares an email from a researcher who acknowledges flaws in the system but suggests that such issues should be kept quiet because many scientists rely on grants for their careers. Sabine pushes back against this idea, arguing that ignoring the problem only allows it to persist. She criticizes how research funding often prioritizes trends and safe topics over true scientific progress, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of groundbreaking discoveries."

If you think this is an exception, then okay—I don't.

Did you watch the video? She's talking about supercolliders and how they get sold with the promise of unveiling the secrets of the big bang and all of reality. If you want to extrapolate that to social sciences, you've got a lot of work to do, because the specific mechanism that she's arguing about is that people don't understand quantum particles and the big bang. That simply doesn't apply to all grants.

Just... take a step back and look at what you're doing. You're generalizing a specific argument (and using a generalizing algorithm to help you do that), and then claiming you have support for it. This is a logical fallacy known as a motte and bailey.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]

Your motte is that supercollider experiments are sold on promises that are beyond what they can deliver based on a general lack of competency with quantum particles. The Bailey is that this is the same thing being done in "social studies" which we're all supposed to then further bailey into transgender issues. You have't tried to defend anything about social science grants, and your use of this video doesn't support it. Retreating to the motte of supercolliders is not helping your case.

Again, take a step back. You're using a logical fallacy to support something. Do some introspection as to why and work on yourself a bit.

 

[novcze]

Then you will have no problem supporting that claim.

I'm not Sabine, I'm not biting the hand...

That simply doesn't apply to all grants.

I never said it does, so I don't know what prompted your long response. I only insinuated that this isn't limited to a single case.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not Sabine, I'm not biting the hand...

I didn't say you were, I was addressing your words, not hers. You don't think it's an exception, so you should have no issue supporting that belief.

I never said it does, so I don't know what prompted your long response. I only insinuated that this isn't limited to a single case.

Oh but you did say that. You stated that academia doesn't create anything of value.

 

[novcze]

You don't think it's an exception, so you should have no issue supporting that belief.

It aligns with my experience—how exactly do you expect me to "support" that? I'm not going to discuss specifics on an internet forum.

Oh but you did say that. You stated that academia doesn't create anything of value.

quote me

 

[Scaff]

It aligns with my experience—how exactly do you expect me to "support" that? I'm not going to discuss specifics on an internet forum.

That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed.

quote me

I already have!

"Someone here suggested that academia must create something valuable to get grants—but it doesn’t."

 

[Clinton Ducks]

"Someone here suggested that academia must create something valuable to get grants—but it doesn’t."

There are two ways to interpret that, and I get the feeling you’ve chosen the wrong one

 

[Scaff]

There are two ways to interpret that, and I get the feeling you’ve chosen the wrong one

If you disagree with my reading, then I know I'm onto a winner.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

If you disagree with my reading, then I know I'm onto a winner.

I’ll ignore that, and just correct you instead. What he’s (quite obviously) saying is that academia doesn’t have to produce anything of value to get grants, not that academia doesn’t produce anything of value full stop.

 

[Exorcet]

Someone here suggested that academia must create something valuable to get grants—but it doesn’t. I know this firsthand, and the video only proves that it's the same everywhere.

The question was how are they getting grants from doing nothing:

This is why gender has become a field of study. I'm not sure how a baseless field would survive to receive grants if it never produced results.

 

[Danoff]

I never said it does, so I don't know what prompted your long response. I only insinuated that this isn't limited to a single case.

I never said you did.

You're back in your motte, but just not all the way in. Your argument is that now Sabine's video might apply to one more case, any additional case, than just the supercollider case. This is almost entirely inside your motte, but just one case, unspecified, out of the motte. This is not your previous argument, which was that this same argument applies to social sciences.

I'm not interested in playing this game. I've asked you to address, internally, why you'd use a logical fallacy to try to bolster your argument. You responded by using it again.

 

[Scaff]

I’ll ignore that, and just correct you instead.

Feel free, white knight away.

What he’s (quite obviously) saying is that academia doesn’t have to produce anything of value to get grants, not that academia doesn’t produce anything of value full stop.

In your reading, and even in that case isnt a supportable position across academia. The OP has been asked the clarify his position on this, and refused to do so.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

In your reading.

No, you’ve just twisted his words and accused him of saying something he blatantly didn’t say.

 

[Scaff]

No, you’ve just twisted his words and accused him of saying something he blatantly didn’t say.

That would still be a no.

Once again the OP hasn't provided enough detail for that claim to be made (and once again regardless of how you read it, it's an inaccurate claim).

Your reading of it is a 'so wrong it seems right' position, as it ignores the difficulty in proving value of research ahead of grants being issued.

Even 'hard' sciences suffer this issue, the amount of grant money that's been poured into String Theory is likely staggering. All for a theory than remains unproven, yet that doesn't make it lack value, given that those unproven works have benefited other areas of research.

It's arguable that, as long as it carries due rigour, all academic research carries value. As regardless of the results it furthers knowledge and understanding, after all value isn't simply monetary.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

That would still be a no.

Once again the OP hasn't provided enough detail for that claim to be made (and once again regardless of how you read it, it's an inaccurate claim).

I’m not trying to substantiate what he said, I’m just informing you of your error in interpretation. Unfortunately you seem a little too pig headed to admit your mistake, so I’ll just leave it at that.

 

[Scaff]

I’m not trying to substantiate what he said, I’m just informing you of your error in interpretation. Unfortunately you seem a little too pig headed to admit your mistake, so I’ll just leave it at that.

I've already addressed this, the OP hasn't provided enough for a single reading to be categorically addressed as 'the one'.