"Also, don't waste half your essay talking about whether someone has the right or experience to comment on the topic. They've already done so, and it's more ad hominem. Get to the point." -- Yes, attacking someone's "right...to comment" is probably fruitless, but no, it's not the same thing as a reader laying out what they think are deficiencies in a contributor's experience and qualifications. The purpose of that is usually not to roll back reality, as you imply (in a "straw man" move of your own). Instead, it can be to suggest why readers might want to approach the the original writer's views with some caution. Ad hominem attacks are personal and character-based; bringing up an author's experience is not in itself an ad hominem attack. Qualifications such as experience are a legitimate part of the evidence you call for in a reply.
I am studying at a university in Washington D.C. - I don't want to mention the name, but it has a bulldog as a mascot - but anyway, points 3 and 4 should be posted at the top of any online discussion section, and read before posting a response.
Point 6 is the most important, and I will be mentioning this Substack to my peers.
I promise to follow your suggestions, however, when certain subjects appear that involve - let's say Bill Gates - it is very hard to resist the use of ad hominem attacks - but I will try my best.
Absolutely! This recent trend towards ostracizing rather than debating only cements the power of the elites, because they're the least vulnerable to the effects, and because this discourages us - the masses - from collectively becoming more than followers of already-set paths.
I actually love the comments almost as much as I love the authors’ work. Because I might be thinking a certain way and then a comment will help me think in a different way. I guess that’s the way we used to do things before the “mic drop“ of the Internet. I’m glad to see we don’t do this here. At least not very often.
Med student whose first degree was in classics... I was taught that critical analysis was about reading the best presentation of each "side" of the argument, and then negotiating a position aka making your mind up... Something that I suspect this substack would endorse... My criticism of wokism /the contemporary academy is that it's all about brainwashing people into agreeing with them, it's not about promoting critical thinking skills and different perspectives and encouraging people to use their critical analytical skills to make up their mind themselves... I'm thinking of certain academically-aligned media which vigorously promote a woke agenda, it's the absence of a presentation of the strongest, most coherent competing/contrasting perspectives (usually no acknowledgement that valid competing perspectives exist) so that viewers can exercise their critical thinking skills and make up their own minds that has led to my loss of faith in the left (even if I agree with the argument they're promoting, what's happening looks much more like propaganda than critical inquiry)...
When I first attended college in the late 1960's the trend toward English, Humanities, and Philosophy majors being preferred by medical schools had just begun, and I agreed with the argument that a good liberal arts education (which does include mathematics, chemistry, and physics majors) is preferred for future physicians.
Having said that, I'm struggling with the fact that Anthony Fauci graduated from the College of the Holy Cross with a major in Classics. How did what followed happen?
Wait did you really both ask us to avoid personal attacks and focus on the arguments while also calling people who don't want a reply the problem with society?
In defense of those people, I don't think it's that -- other things being equal -- they wouldn't like to hear why the author may disagree. Rather, they are being polite/self-effacing and saying they aren't assuming addressing their concerns is the best use of space/time -- or they just feel shy about having their writing in a post.
A lot of the time people just want to feel like they've expressed themselves and they've been heard. And that's not a bad thing -- it helps us avoid being stuck in an eternal loop of argument (I've said my piece I don't necessarily need to keep arguing) and makes it possible to have a nice Thanksgiving dinner.
But don't worry, I will never tell you not to reply to my objections.
"Let us say, and this is just our opinion, you are the problem in society."
LOL
"There's no workman, whatsoever he be, That may both work well and hastily"
~ Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales," specifically from "The Tale of Melibee"** (also known as "The Tale of Melibius"). In it the wife, named Prudence, offers good advice to husband. Mine has told me don't write op-eds.
Im confused and dont know where or how to respond except here--received this email fromSensible saying: "You read an article you disagree on" etc nd gave me a set of suggestions-was this a general email out or directed to me? Its link led to this. About what did I disagree?
I claim Sensible Medicine as CME so I’m getting reimbursed from my CME account. Love this stuff. Yeah the comments can get annoying and non-sensible at times but that’s going to be the way it is on any platform until humans figure out how to bring mythic thinkers, modern thinkers and postmodern thinkers all together up to a higher level of intellectual development and integrate.
I have often disagreed with some of the positions taken in the posts, but 100% support Substack and Sensible Medicine being willing to host a variety of viewpoints. Debate of ideas is critical to a functioning society
"Also, don't waste half your essay talking about whether someone has the right or experience to comment on the topic. They've already done so, and it's more ad hominem. Get to the point." -- Yes, attacking someone's "right...to comment" is probably fruitless, but no, it's not the same thing as a reader laying out what they think are deficiencies in a contributor's experience and qualifications. The purpose of that is usually not to roll back reality, as you imply (in a "straw man" move of your own). Instead, it can be to suggest why readers might want to approach the the original writer's views with some caution. Ad hominem attacks are personal and character-based; bringing up an author's experience is not in itself an ad hominem attack. Qualifications such as experience are a legitimate part of the evidence you call for in a reply.
https://youtu.be/a8lQpGikZWo?si=DPLcFrA-j5N_j_xp
Excellent post.
I am studying at a university in Washington D.C. - I don't want to mention the name, but it has a bulldog as a mascot - but anyway, points 3 and 4 should be posted at the top of any online discussion section, and read before posting a response.
Point 6 is the most important, and I will be mentioning this Substack to my peers.
I promise to follow your suggestions, however, when certain subjects appear that involve - let's say Bill Gates - it is very hard to resist the use of ad hominem attacks - but I will try my best.
I have seen a few where I would like to reply and disagree. Maybe this will be useful.
Absolutely! This recent trend towards ostracizing rather than debating only cements the power of the elites, because they're the least vulnerable to the effects, and because this discourages us - the masses - from collectively becoming more than followers of already-set paths.
I actually love the comments almost as much as I love the authors’ work. Because I might be thinking a certain way and then a comment will help me think in a different way. I guess that’s the way we used to do things before the “mic drop“ of the Internet. I’m glad to see we don’t do this here. At least not very often.
Im a subscriber to, and fan of, VP's substack. But I'm enjoying and encouraging VP's nervousness here wrt his recent Sensible Medicine articles .😂
*Sensible* medicine does kinda imply nuance at least, and probably centrism more often than not.
Med student whose first degree was in classics... I was taught that critical analysis was about reading the best presentation of each "side" of the argument, and then negotiating a position aka making your mind up... Something that I suspect this substack would endorse... My criticism of wokism /the contemporary academy is that it's all about brainwashing people into agreeing with them, it's not about promoting critical thinking skills and different perspectives and encouraging people to use their critical analytical skills to make up their mind themselves... I'm thinking of certain academically-aligned media which vigorously promote a woke agenda, it's the absence of a presentation of the strongest, most coherent competing/contrasting perspectives (usually no acknowledgement that valid competing perspectives exist) so that viewers can exercise their critical thinking skills and make up their own minds that has led to my loss of faith in the left (even if I agree with the argument they're promoting, what's happening looks much more like propaganda than critical inquiry)...
When I first attended college in the late 1960's the trend toward English, Humanities, and Philosophy majors being preferred by medical schools had just begun, and I agreed with the argument that a good liberal arts education (which does include mathematics, chemistry, and physics majors) is preferred for future physicians.
Having said that, I'm struggling with the fact that Anthony Fauci graduated from the College of the Holy Cross with a major in Classics. How did what followed happen?
Wait did you really both ask us to avoid personal attacks and focus on the arguments while also calling people who don't want a reply the problem with society?
In defense of those people, I don't think it's that -- other things being equal -- they wouldn't like to hear why the author may disagree. Rather, they are being polite/self-effacing and saying they aren't assuming addressing their concerns is the best use of space/time -- or they just feel shy about having their writing in a post.
A lot of the time people just want to feel like they've expressed themselves and they've been heard. And that's not a bad thing -- it helps us avoid being stuck in an eternal loop of argument (I've said my piece I don't necessarily need to keep arguing) and makes it possible to have a nice Thanksgiving dinner.
But don't worry, I will never tell you not to reply to my objections.
.
My favorite parts of Covid:
#71
Dopes on Dope.
They are just doctors.
… History’s Jekyll’s.
.
"Let us say, and this is just our opinion, you are the problem in society."
LOL
"There's no workman, whatsoever he be, That may both work well and hastily"
~ Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales," specifically from "The Tale of Melibee"** (also known as "The Tale of Melibius"). In it the wife, named Prudence, offers good advice to husband. Mine has told me don't write op-eds.
Im confused and dont know where or how to respond except here--received this email fromSensible saying: "You read an article you disagree on" etc nd gave me a set of suggestions-was this a general email out or directed to me? Its link led to this. About what did I disagree?
Definitely not personal. A post for all of our readers.
I claim Sensible Medicine as CME so I’m getting reimbursed from my CME account. Love this stuff. Yeah the comments can get annoying and non-sensible at times but that’s going to be the way it is on any platform until humans figure out how to bring mythic thinkers, modern thinkers and postmodern thinkers all together up to a higher level of intellectual development and integrate.
I have often disagreed with some of the positions taken in the posts, but 100% support Substack and Sensible Medicine being willing to host a variety of viewpoints. Debate of ideas is critical to a functioning society
Sensible Medicine
I totally agree with your recommendations - stipulations.
In the words of Jean-Luc Picard "Make it so...!
This non-doc loves Sensible Medicine and all the articles, but I especially love the comments section! Always interesting, makes me think. 🤔