Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 192
- 1
What is this place?
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.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Thank you. What do you think the point of that is though? First off it's the wrong method and the wrong parameter. Second off if you are good at understanding the current set of facts, your theory is already at <10% probability while mine is >90%. So, thanks for giving me your blessing to spend $100k on a study, maybe I will get on that when I have all of the money I should have.
Yes, good logic, Also, if fallout American life involves a lot of radiation, then exposing oneself to radiation is beneficial. Agreed?
Of course, that’s called hormesis. There are some interesting studies which concluded that small amounts of radiation are protective against larger radiation exposure and are conducive to longevity. I believe there was one interesting study about an apartment complex in Korea that had constant low levels of radioactivity. But it’s been a long time since I read about this. Probably back on SSC
I would advise you to not put your money where you mouth is, in this case. You really do not want to start sleeping next to uranium.
More options
Context Copy link
Unless there's another, it was Taiwan (page 56).
Unbelievable effect sizes. Are you willing to make a bet with me that those won't hold if you correct for cross sectional confounders? Where you take the position that the positive effect will hold. Or are we just making performance here? Do we really believe that something that shreds DNA has such a ridiculous dose-response curve?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link