Competition is magic. But this argument must be amplified! How? Easy, appeal to "innovation."
 |
The denalist will argue that the intervention will stifle innovation. Typical 6 of Hearts arguments include "this is just a tool," and "you're banning technology."
Next is the 6 of Diamonds, a somewhat contradictory but still widely-used argument--that technology "can't be regulated." Of course, any technology can (just look at standard setting organizations), but this exercise isn't about being cogent, it's about stopping whatever intervention the denialist opposes. |
 |
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I'm very proud to be on Scienceblogs with Mark, and for my first posts, I'm going to be introducing the Denialists' Deck of Cards, a humorous way to think about rhetorical techniques that are used in public debate. Those who pay attention to consumer protection issues, especially in product safety…
Hello and welcome to denialism blog.
Here we will discuss the problem of denialists, their standard arguing techniques, how to identify denialists and/or cranks, and discuss topics of general interest such as skepticism, medicine, law and science. I'll be taking on denialists in the sciences,…
See what a "test essay" is in the introduction to my previous essay.
This is a question another doctoral student was assigned. The question asked for a lot of details, so nothing is covered very thoroughly. I did only minor editing just now, and those edits are marked with [].
The question:
"A…
"Can't be enforced" is a different argument than "it won't work" (the Jack of Diamonds). Here, the denialist is usually threatening to operate an offending practice overseas, or oddly enough, arguing that because a proposal doesn't give someone a right to sue, it isn't worth passing.
Of course…
I just found the "deck of cards" and I love the concept-- it's nice seeing the tactics laid out in a quick reference form. Thanks!
Regulation can stifle innovation. Merely claiming arguments you don't like are "denalist" doesn't refute them. You're 'dishonestalist'.
And Murph misses the point. It was kind of like when MarkCC of Good Math, Bad Math had a momentary lapse in his normally exceptional intelligence and thought I was bashing all uses of the word "wellness", rather than just the woo usage.
Anyway, as for "technology can't be regulated," I know of one example that comes close: Music piracy. I know it's hard to prevent, but that doesn't mean that it's futile to take measures against it.
For "stifles innovation": I agree that it can, but I can easily see denialists arguing that all efforts at regulation stifle innovation. If you want to argue that a regulation stifles innovation, you'd better do your work and show how it does.
Not to mention the wonderful resilience and creativity of the human race. It's weird reading GW denialists say "Stop coming up with creative solutions! You're supposed to sit back and rely on human creativity!"
What they mean, of course, is "Stop asking me to help make the effort! Don't you understand that my role is to live as I please while yours is to clear up my mess?"
Murph, you've encountered the problem we're having with the slow release of these ideas. I guess it's inevitable with an internet presentation.
Chris isn't saying these individual arguments are all incorrect, but they are a part of a rigmarole that typifies resistance to sensible regulation. It's the aggregate, not the singular that we're trying to emphasize in pretty much all cases.