Thread by @WEschenbach

🧵I write about climate science, politics, international affairs, and a host of other subjects. Links in bio.

Best thing about writing for the web?

People who can show me where I'm wrong. It saves me the endless time I'd otherwise waste following blind alleys and wrong ideas.

I'm known on the web for admitting when I'm wrong. I devoted a whole post to an error I'd made, a post entitled "Wrong Again". Painful, but necessary.

And as I said, that's a good thing—it prevents me from continuing in my misunderstanding.
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/11/wro…

And here's an example from X. If you show that I'm wrong, I will man up and admit it in no uncertain words. In this case I'd misidentified a photo.

https://twitter.com/WEschenbach/status/1641558055161589764

The problem with proving I'm wrong is that lots of folks don't understand how to disagree effectively. So here's the Quick Guide To Proving Willis Is Wrong.

Below is Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. It shows the various ways to disagree in increasing order of effectiveness.

Sadly, far too many folks make their living on X down at the bottom of the pyramid, name-calling. Whether the insult is "ass hat" or "racist" or "Zionist" or "terf", that goes nowhere.

In my bio it says

"Immediate block if you open the bidding by insulting me."

Next up the pyramid is the "ad hominem" argument, like "Willis, you can't be right, you don't have credentials" or "you post on a 'climate denier' website". Nonsense. The issue is, are my claims true or not. That doesn't depend on my education, credentials, or where I publish.

Next up the pyramid is responding to tone. It's where someone ignores the actual claims and issues and instead responds to how it's presented. That's something like "Willis, you shouldn't be so harsh in your arguments." And?

Then we have contradiction. Here, the disagreement finally reaches the goal, the actual issues and claims themselves.

However, there's nothing but contradiction—no evidence, no math, no logic. Just "Nope, Willis, you're wrong". Again, that goes nowhere. Meaningless.

Then we have counterargument. We're getting to the good stuff. This first contradicts what I said and then provides observations, evidence, logic, and/or math to support your argument.

Moving upwards, we have refutation. That's where you first quote my exact words and follow with "Willis, that interpretation of the facts is wrong, and here are the detailed reasons why."

You have actively refuted exactly what I said. And at this point, you've shown I'm wrong.

Finally, many arguments rest on a central point. Show that point is wrong and the edifice crumbles. That looks something like "Willis, your central claim is where you say, and I quote, "Germaniums grow better under moonlight." That's wrong, and here's why."

The top two levels are the only way to show that I'm wrong, and I invite you to do so—it's the quickest path to me learning new things.

Finally, please, don't bother with the bottom levels of the pyramid, name-calling, ad hominems, and the like. I'll just point and laugh.

TL;DR version:

TO SHOW THAT WILLIS IS WRONG:

• Quote exactly what I said that you think is wrong, then

• Show with supporting arguments exactly why it's wrong

Quoting is crucial. I can defend my words. I can't defend your rephrasing of them.

Onwards, let's go adventuring!

w.

@threadreaderapp unroll