A lot of sophisticated sounding
words covering a flawed, irrational framework.
a particular variety of "begging the question" in which the very things the author criticizes, he also uses to support his own position.
Derived from Social Psychologist/Philosopher
John Haidt's attacking arguments against Sam Harris, over Harris' $10,000 challenge for someone to provide a written argument compelling enough to change Harris'
mind re: the central premise in the
book, "The Moral Landscape."
Exemplified in this article:
www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10
Haidt writes early on:
"
Nobody has yet found a way to “debias” people—to train people to look for evidence on the other side—once emotions or self-interest are activated."
"Saying human reason is a
failure in battling emotions... except when it isn't... is pure Haidt-speech."
Yet later, provides a direct counter example:
"This is why science works so
well. Scientists suffer from the confirmation
bias like everybody else, but the genius of science as an institution is that it incentivizes scientists to disconfirm each others’ ideas, and it creates a community within which a reasoned consensus eventually emerges."
