I consider "Scott wrote it" to be a good reason to read an article on its own. That is, the set of all Scottposts has a high enough average quality to exceed my threshold for attention, at least to the point of clicking and reading it long enough to make up my own mind. Which is why I click on all of them.
If you don't feel the same way then you don't have to read it.
My point is that anyone can post whatever blog caught their fancy and say "this is good, read it", but usually we understand people have different preferences and interests. What might be fascinating to me, might be utterly boring to you. That's why it's good form to write a submission statement - to give people some idea if they'd be interested in reading the linked article.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
ArjinFerman 1yr ago
I do agree, which is why I gave a one-sentence summary. Didn't bother with more because I'm not super-invested in getting people to read it - I didn't write it, and I didn't think it was particularly-new ground at least for rats.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No submission statement; not reading.
It's a Scottpost, not somebody self-advertising.
Is a defence of doing science rather than "Trusting The Science".
True, I shot from the hip there in assuming that it would be exactly someone self-advertising their blog, without even considering the who or what.
A submission statement would still be nice though.
More options
Context Copy link
Still not reading without a good reason to, so a submission statement would be nice.
I consider "Scott wrote it" to be a good reason to read an article on its own. That is, the set of all Scottposts has a high enough average quality to exceed my threshold for attention, at least to the point of clicking and reading it long enough to make up my own mind. Which is why I click on all of them.
If you don't feel the same way then you don't have to read it.
Thanks, I didn't.
My point is that anyone can post whatever blog caught their fancy and say "this is good, read it", but usually we understand people have different preferences and interests. What might be fascinating to me, might be utterly boring to you. That's why it's good form to write a submission statement - to give people some idea if they'd be interested in reading the linked article.
I do agree, which is why I gave a one-sentence summary. Didn't bother with more because I'm not super-invested in getting people to read it - I didn't write it, and I didn't think it was particularly-new ground at least for rats.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link