Marinos is making a credible argument from statistics and science. He ought to be able to do so without constantly taking shots at anyone. When he does so I've been reasonably impressed. The fact that he chooses not to leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I trust Marinos less because I get the impression that he is using Scott (and the broader community) for clout-chasing. I don't see why that should make him more credible.
He ought to be able to do so without constantly taking shots at anyone.
He's not so much taking shots as being a bit of a sea-lion. I can understand how it's annoying, but aspies gonna aspie.
Why?
It's not just Scott, the sum total of hostility towards ivermectin, combined with the absolute refusal to debate Alexandros on the merits of the arguments comes off as "oh shit, he makes good points, that I don't know how to argue against". I'm not saying Scott has to talk to him, but it if he's so obviously wrong, shouldn't there be someone among the science trusting cloutsharks that would be happy to take him on?
It's an asymmetric strategy. Marinos will expend more time and effort constructing his castle than 99% of readers can spend attacking it. He's made that his brand--he makes money off of angry skeptics who want to signal they "do your own research."
But what about the other 1%? You make a good point about the absence of Trust Science clout-chasers. They don't seem too eager to take on his fortified position. If I had to guess, I'd say they're off on a different part of Twitter, building up their own forts, because that's their brand.
I'm honestly not sure I want to see those deboonkers come out and get into a slapfight with Marinos. I don't really trust them for the same reasons. They're showing up to make money and promote the brand. A showdown between two open partisans (pretending to be neutral) is less appealing than a polite conversation between two reasonable authors.
Truth-seeking is supposed to be a two-way street, and all I see from Marinos is one-way. Should some commenter point out "hey, strongyloides was theorized to stress the immune system, not kill through hyperinfection!" or "I reran the meta-analysis and got blah blah blah," does Marinos pick that up and signal-boost it? Does he have any reason to do so? His fame is based on giving reasonable arguments for ivermectin. He doesn't have to answer to random commenters unless he thinks he can score points off them. I've seen that happen on reddit, most clearly here and here. Note the lack of any concessions, just claims that he welcomes criticism, followed by grilling anyone who remotely indicates skepticism.
Should some commenter point out "hey, strongyloides was theorized to stress the immune system, not kill through hyperinfection!" or "I reran the meta-analysis and got blah blah blah," does Marinos pick that up and signal-boost it?
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 -
Scott's reward for interacting with this guy is that this guy will now not leave him alone.
The reactions of Scott, his fans, and Trust The Science people to Alexandros' posts leave me convinced that Ivermectin probably works against covid.
And it's pretty fun to watch the counterarguments collapse to "why are you still talking about it!"
Why?
Marinos is making a credible argument from statistics and science. He ought to be able to do so without constantly taking shots at anyone. When he does so I've been reasonably impressed. The fact that he chooses not to leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I trust Marinos less because I get the impression that he is using Scott (and the broader community) for clout-chasing. I don't see why that should make him more credible.
He's not so much taking shots as being a bit of a sea-lion. I can understand how it's annoying, but aspies gonna aspie.
It's not just Scott, the sum total of hostility towards ivermectin, combined with the absolute refusal to debate Alexandros on the merits of the arguments comes off as "oh shit, he makes good points, that I don't know how to argue against". I'm not saying Scott has to talk to him, but it if he's so obviously wrong, shouldn't there be someone among the science trusting cloutsharks that would be happy to take him on?
That's the thing about sealioning, though.
It's an asymmetric strategy. Marinos will expend more time and effort constructing his castle than 99% of readers can spend attacking it. He's made that his brand--he makes money off of angry skeptics who want to signal they "do your own research."
But what about the other 1%? You make a good point about the absence of Trust Science clout-chasers. They don't seem too eager to take on his fortified position. If I had to guess, I'd say they're off on a different part of Twitter, building up their own forts, because that's their brand.
I'm honestly not sure I want to see those deboonkers come out and get into a slapfight with Marinos. I don't really trust them for the same reasons. They're showing up to make money and promote the brand. A showdown between two open partisans (pretending to be neutral) is less appealing than a polite conversation between two reasonable authors.
Truth-seeking is supposed to be a two-way street, and all I see from Marinos is one-way. Should some commenter point out "hey, strongyloides was theorized to stress the immune system, not kill through hyperinfection!" or "I reran the meta-analysis and got blah blah blah," does Marinos pick that up and signal-boost it? Does he have any reason to do so? His fame is based on giving reasonable arguments for ivermectin. He doesn't have to answer to random commenters unless he thinks he can score points off them. I've seen that happen on reddit, most clearly here and here. Note the lack of any concessions, just claims that he welcomes criticism, followed by grilling anyone who remotely indicates skepticism.
Try it, and find out!
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