Running water on Mars?

[tomBitonti]

Unfortunately an overwhelming majority of his listeners are not like you, and they believe every single thing he says as if it was said by God.

Additional responses omitted.

We are ending up debating whether a majority of Rush's listeners believe every single thing he says.

That's debatable, but only in an uninteresting sense. The debate hinges on the unreasonable every, which is immediately false.

Also, there is a conclusion (listeners here take a different view of Rush's statements, compared to a typical listener) which does not require the every statement. (There is another problem, in that we hardly have a handle on a typical EnWorld member, or at least I don't.)

If we shift our discussion to that difference, there is a lot more which is interesting to discuss.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Umbran]

Additional responses omitted.

We are ending up debating whether a majority of Rush's listeners believe every single thing he says.

That's debatable, but only in an uninteresting sense. The debate hinges on the unreasonable every, which is immediately false.

Discussions on the internet very often (maybe even "usually") drive to polar extremes. It becomes "all or none", and we cannot usually handle a discussion about *some*, or "How much or how little?"

 

[Umbran]

I'm easy, more evidence that he's been influential. Get the graph to look more spikey, and I'm your huckleberry.

With respect, you ought to be more specific. You've already broadly dismissed *everything* presented as "isolated incidents" and "confirmation bias". You leave little confidence that the next stack of stuff won't be similarly summarily dismissed. "Just give me more" leaves us in an open-ended state, where I could keep digging up references, with you shoving them down a hole each time. Intentional or not, it ends up as a variant of "moving the goalposts", in that you get to always say the goalposts are a bit further on, because you never actually set them in the first place.

There isn't a whole lot of point engaging in that kind of discussion.

 

[Ryujin]

Discussions on the internet very often (maybe even "usually") drive to polar extremes. It becomes "all or none", and we cannot usually handle a discussion about *some*, or "How much or how little?"

Well that's only fair, as it's also how political discourse has progressed in The United States

 

[tomBitonti]

Discussions on the internet very often (maybe even "usually") drive to polar extremes. It becomes "all or none", and we cannot usually handle a discussion about *some*, or "How much or how little?"

Yes, but maybe we don't have to do that here (drive to polar extremes)?

In the case of listeners views of Rush, there is something interesting going on. Looking at two very simplistic characterization as points for comparison:

"That's absurd (and ugly). It distorts the truth and interferes with gaining an understanding of the topic."

"That's amusing. Not literally true, but true in the sense of capturing an essential feature of the topic."

I hear the original statement as saying that the second characterization is much more common than the first.

I find the different to be very of interest, since, when I listen to Rush and others of his ilk, I have to work to get to the second characterization, while the first occurs to me almost immediately .

Thx!
TomB

 

[Ovinomancer]

With respect, you ought to be more specific. You've already broadly dismissed *everything* presented as "isolated incidents" and "confirmation bias". You leave little confidence that the next stack of stuff won't be similarly summarily dismissed.

Let's do be fair. I acknowledged and stipulated each of your events as true. I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to equally stipulate that each even is also indicative of Rush's influence. The charge I'm disputing is that he had 'significant influence in his time'. Is all of that fair?

If so, then my contention is that the number of events you cited (around six iirc) over 28 years of national broadcasting is not sufficient to show he has had 'significant influence' even as I stipulate that each event was valid and true for your conjecture. This is because he made political statements every day for 28 years but you only have six or so events in which that influence was noteworthy. That's not enough.

"Just give me more" leaves us in an open-ended state, where I could keep digging up references, with you shoving them down a hole each time. Intentional or not, it ends up as a variant of "moving the goalposts", in that you get to always say the goalposts are a bit further on, because you never actually set them in the first place.

There isn't a whole lot of point engaging in that kind of discussion.

While I'm willing to agree that the risk is there, I'm not willing to accept that I'm the person that will move goalposts. I get where you're coming from, but this appears as questioning my honesty without cause as I've never shown the behavior attributed. I get that this is the internet, and you have to manage your time, but if the issue is that you felt I didn't set a hard enough goal, ask for a harder goal before you go into assuming I won't provide one because I'm not treating honestly.

If you would like a harder goalpost, then how about twice the number of distinct events you've provided, or at least 1 event every two years he was on the air. That at least aligns closely enough to national election cycles for influence to be significant. If you disagree, propose a counter metric. We can haggle.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, but maybe we don't have to do that here (drive to polar extremes)?

In the case of listeners views of Rush, there is something interesting going on. Looking at two very simplistic characterization as points for comparison:

"That's absurd (and ugly). It distorts the truth and interferes with gaining an understanding of the topic."

"That's amusing. Not literally true, but true in the sense of capturing an essential feature of the topic."

I hear the original statement as saying that the second characterization is much more common than the first.

I find the different to be very of interest, since, when I listen to Rush and others of his ilk, I have to work to get to the second characterization, while the first occurs to me almost immediately .

Thx!
TomB

Not sure I'd agree he captures anything essential half the time, but mostly the latter.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

That's debatable, but only in an uninteresting sense.

If we shift our discussion to that difference, there is a lot more which is interesting to discuss.

That's debatable. What you find interesting may or may not be the same thing anyone else finds interesting.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Let's do be fair. I acknowledged and stipulated each of your events as true. I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to equally stipulate that each even is also indicative of Rush's influence. The charge I'm disputing is that he had 'significant influence in his time'. Is all of that fair?

If so, then my contention is that the number of events you cited (around six iirc) over 28 years of national broadcasting is not sufficient to show he has had 'significant influence' even as I stipulate that each event was valid and true for your conjecture. This is because he made political statements every day for 28 years but you only have six or so events in which that influence was noteworthy. That's not enough.


While I'm willing to agree that the risk is there, I'm not willing to accept that I'm the person that will move goalposts. I get where you're coming from, but this appears as questioning my honesty without cause as I've never shown the behavior attributed. I get that this is the internet, and you have to manage your time, but if the issue is that you felt I didn't set a hard enough goal, ask for a harder goal before you go into assuming I won't provide one because I'm not treating honestly.

If you would like a harder goalpost, then how about twice the number of distinct events you've provided, or at least 1 event every two years he was on the air. That at least aligns closely enough to national election cycles for influence to be significant. If you disagree, propose a counter metric. We can haggle.

So your goal is a quantitative one rather than a qualitative one, correct?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So your goal is a quantitative one rather than a qualitative one, correct?

I could discuss qualitative. What metrics do you have in mind?