“Epistemic Opening?” I didn’t get past the title of the post.

ep·i·ste·mic (p-stmk)
$0.50 word meaning relating to, or involving knowledge; cognitive.

What goes on in the Green Room, anyway?

james23 on April 26, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Congratulations, Exhibit A, and thank you for your cameo. May you remain forever untroubled and untouched by unfamiliar words and concepts.

Brilliant CK, maybe you should call him out on his close minded wingnuttery.

Africanus on April 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

I believe I did. And he continues to produce, apparently under the impression that he’s actually making arguments.

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Note that CK MacLeod isn't proud of his astounding vocabulary or so insecure as to insult a person who points out his arrogance. /sarc

Having had the desire (and perhaps the money) to advance your education and learn pretty words does not make you any more or less intelligent than those who have not had the need, desire, or opportunity to do so.

CK, I love how your posts must use the most erudite of language so as to alienate the layman who may peruse this site from coming to a full understanding of your points. Academia's ever growing crusade to isolate knowledge from the people through verbosity aside, I put to you a question. Were Galileo and Columbus correct because they were part of a large consensus in their time? I would remind you that democracy was abandoned in favor of a republic for a reason.

To say it in layman's terms: "Quit trying to disguise your argument with big words." and "Wasn't saying 'More people agree with me, so we are right! Truth be damned!' the reason why the GW people are in hot water in the first place?" and "We live in a republic because our founding fathers realized that just because you have more people agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right."

Why should the right plant its flag on radical denial when politically the coalition of denialists + unsure + believing realists is much bigger, and can unify around a more prudent, resilient, constructive, and fair process?

To translate: "Why should we demand fact-based evidence when we can appease those who would rather regulate your freedoms away gradually instead of quickly?"

Yes, it would be best for everyone if we didn't demand truth, but rather settled for something (proven or not) that we can all feel comfortable with. /sarc