tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post5341350526657012210..comments2024-01-25T13:46:11.967-06:00Comments on The Bronze Blog: The Nature of DoggerelRyan Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14750814560493466382noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-55625015745030697382007-07-17T08:42:00.000-05:002007-07-17T08:42:00.000-05:00Are the woos really that stupid?On the off chance ...<I>Are the woos really that stupid?</I><BR/><BR/>On the off chance that that <I>isn't</I> a rhetorical question: yes. Well, perhaps "stupid" isn't the word - more like "completely unfamiliar with even the most basic processes of reasoning". However, "stupid" is close enough...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-14153649527427643582007-07-16T16:12:00.000-05:002007-07-16T16:12:00.000-05:00I read an essay a while back (can't remember where...I read an essay a while back (can't remember where) about the cult-like qualities of AA that contained a phrase that resonated with me: "Thought-stopping cliches". The basic idea, if I remember correctly, was that groups develop a canon of words and phrases which are repeated in the face of challenges to their ideas with little or no regard to meaning or context. For instance, AA members are fond of repeating "There's no chemical solution for a spiritual problem", or something along those lines, in response to just about any challenge to their methods. Constant recourse to cliches like "other ways of knowing" or "don't you think there's something more than just the world?" sound a lot like that to me. They're uttered more to put an end to a line of inquiry than to contribute to the substance of the debate. A lot of the doggerel you're pointing out seems to be examples of these thought-stopping cliches. Some people us words like "energy" and "worldview" without any regard at all to what the words actually mean, and do so in a way more geared towards shielding ideas from criticism than towards providing actual substantive arguments in favor of the ideas. And it's really frustrating to get into a debate with someone who uses language this way, seeing as they're more interested in protecting overvalued ideas than in persuading others through critical analysis and examination of evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-57152282605642732792007-07-16T12:19:00.000-05:002007-07-16T12:19:00.000-05:00Your last paragraph describes why I so often simp...Your last paragraph describes why I so often simply walk away from debates with woos, or even with my friends who hold certain woo-ish ideas. No matter how many times I try to steer the argument back to the facts, it keeps getting bogged down in red herrings, completely unsupported claims, and yet more red herrings meant to hide the lack of support for those claims. Of course I keep coming back and trying, because I love bashing my head against walls like that, but it really gets to me some days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com