As may or may not have been clear from a previous post, I find internet debates to be, frankly, silly. This is for several reasons.
First - most of what people are arguing about doesn't have reliable evidence on either side because it's based on personal preference. There isn't an objective way for me to tell you my Mac is better than your PC. This preference is completely subjective, and since we aren't the same person, well... We're both wrong. And right. And that's just fine, we're allowed to like different things. Move on already.
Second - even when there is a wealth of evidence supporting both sides in such a way where there is room for debate (and this is extremely rare), people on the internet don't compare points or stances as much as they compare biceps and chest hair. That may be an imperfect metaphor, but it'll serve well enough. Internet arguments are almost exclusively an endurance competition, with whoever is willing to talk the longest the supposed "winner."
My stance is clear. If you're arguing on the internet, your actual argument can almost always be boiled down to one of these five reasons. But there is another group of people whose intentions aren't so easily defined.
These people can be found in the debates that rage against scientific findings because (insert pseudo-mystic babbling here).
There are two sides to those arguments. There are the people who have read and understand the findings of whatever studies are related to the subject, and the people who haven't. The people who can see the implications of unbiased experimentation, and conspiracy theorists. Does it sound harsh for me to split all of the people that exist on the internet into those two groups? You're probably right. Let's see if I can find a third.
People who don't argue on the internet. That's the third.
Let's look at an example. Vaccinations and Autism is a great one, because it has received not only a lot of attention online over the past few years, but because it's also received a ton of attention in the scientific community. And guess what? There's nothing there. Vaccinations do not cause Autism. We don't know what does. There have been dozens upon dozens of studies that show that, and despite this, people still argue the other side. Why are we debating this?
Well, people arguing in favor of science are debating it probably because they can't stand people being wrong on the internet. They're misguided, of course. Everyone is wrong on the internet. Then there's the people arguing against vaccination, who are probably arguing for one of the five reasons I mentioned in that other post. There is no real reason this debate exists.
Because there's nothing to debate.
Vaccinations and Autism are completely unrelated as far as our understanding of the natural world can perceive. End of story. Anyone who says otherwise is claiming a deeper understanding of biology, chemistry, and genetics than every scientist who's ever touched this subject. Which, if it were true, would make them pretty selfish for not sharing their wealth of knowledge.
So it's pretty simple.
1. You argue online because you've been led astray by the thought that people actually care about learning via internet debates (on behalf of the world, I'd like to apologize for your colossal waste of time).
2. You argue online because ego.
3. You don't argue online.
Which category do you fall into? I've been in both of the first two groups over the years, but I like to think I'm transitioning into the third pretty effectively as time goes on. If you think you can add to the groups I've outlined here, or if you think you've got another group of people that fits, hey, it's the internet! Sharing is easy and free. Go ahead and post your thoughts below!
I'll probably ignore them.
First - most of what people are arguing about doesn't have reliable evidence on either side because it's based on personal preference. There isn't an objective way for me to tell you my Mac is better than your PC. This preference is completely subjective, and since we aren't the same person, well... We're both wrong. And right. And that's just fine, we're allowed to like different things. Move on already.
Second - even when there is a wealth of evidence supporting both sides in such a way where there is room for debate (and this is extremely rare), people on the internet don't compare points or stances as much as they compare biceps and chest hair. That may be an imperfect metaphor, but it'll serve well enough. Internet arguments are almost exclusively an endurance competition, with whoever is willing to talk the longest the supposed "winner."
My stance is clear. If you're arguing on the internet, your actual argument can almost always be boiled down to one of these five reasons. But there is another group of people whose intentions aren't so easily defined.
These people can be found in the debates that rage against scientific findings because (insert pseudo-mystic babbling here).
There are two sides to those arguments. There are the people who have read and understand the findings of whatever studies are related to the subject, and the people who haven't. The people who can see the implications of unbiased experimentation, and conspiracy theorists. Does it sound harsh for me to split all of the people that exist on the internet into those two groups? You're probably right. Let's see if I can find a third.
People who don't argue on the internet. That's the third.
Let's look at an example. Vaccinations and Autism is a great one, because it has received not only a lot of attention online over the past few years, but because it's also received a ton of attention in the scientific community. And guess what? There's nothing there. Vaccinations do not cause Autism. We don't know what does. There have been dozens upon dozens of studies that show that, and despite this, people still argue the other side. Why are we debating this?
Well, people arguing in favor of science are debating it probably because they can't stand people being wrong on the internet. They're misguided, of course. Everyone is wrong on the internet. Then there's the people arguing against vaccination, who are probably arguing for one of the five reasons I mentioned in that other post. There is no real reason this debate exists.
Because there's nothing to debate.
Vaccinations and Autism are completely unrelated as far as our understanding of the natural world can perceive. End of story. Anyone who says otherwise is claiming a deeper understanding of biology, chemistry, and genetics than every scientist who's ever touched this subject. Which, if it were true, would make them pretty selfish for not sharing their wealth of knowledge.
So it's pretty simple.
1. You argue online because you've been led astray by the thought that people actually care about learning via internet debates (on behalf of the world, I'd like to apologize for your colossal waste of time).
2. You argue online because ego.
3. You don't argue online.
Which category do you fall into? I've been in both of the first two groups over the years, but I like to think I'm transitioning into the third pretty effectively as time goes on. If you think you can add to the groups I've outlined here, or if you think you've got another group of people that fits, hey, it's the internet! Sharing is easy and free. Go ahead and post your thoughts below!
I'll probably ignore them.
Comments
Post a Comment