There are two fundamentally different sources of truth: ethical consensus and physical data.
They are ultimately incompatible, in that only a single option can be your ultimate source of truth. Albeit other(s) can be valued to some degree.
The issue they took, and I would take too, with that portion of the New Yorker article is that it attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth.
Consequently, the rhetorical paraphrasing of the passage into the comment dismissing nerds seems on point.
Objectively, the humanities has a poor track record of getting pissy and taking cheap shots at science as a viable supreme source of knowledge.
> ... it [the cited paragraph] attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth.
It attacks the idea of using glib, incomplete, or poorly examined "facts" as the basis for a valid argument.
If you want to say that poorly vetted "facts" are a basis for "supreme truth" and, further, that you can only choose that or else some kind of mushy ethical considerations... that's your prerogative, but you're wrong.
Those two points can't be construed any other way than as anti-intellectual. They were cheap shots, and the author should have known they were a cheap shots.
That those points are somewhat incongruous with the subsequent assertion and surrounding piece doesn't mean they're any less anti-intellectual.
] "The most admired arguments are made with data, but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data tend to be ancillary concerns."
And indeed, I'd say that prefacing the immediately above (defensible) with the prior claims (indefensible) is the reason this entire comment thread exists.
The author could have made a much stronger argument about poor citation and fact checking, but they instead chose to include what feels like knee-jerk humanities logic horror, substantially muddying their point.
But I doesn't say that. Throughout the paragraph the emphasis is on the recklessness.
"hyperrational, dispassionate, contrarian, authoritative—often masks a deeper _recklessness_"
"_Ill-advised_ citations"
"_thought_ experiments"
"logic, applied _narrowly_, is used to _justify_"
"data, but the _origins_, _veracity_, and _malleability_ of those data [...]"
And that is also in line with the conclusion that "message-board intellectualism that might once have impressed V.C. observers like Graham has developed into an intellectual style all its own" and "can find themselves immersed in conversations that resemble the output of duelling Markov bots". The critique here is essentially that people don't have scientific literacy.
That people on hacker news think they can be rational, dispassionate and authoritative but that their recklessness with citations, logic and data (and their dismissal of other arguments) suggests they can't.
That is the argument.
All of this is questioning the substance of the arguments made, not the substance of such arguments made correctly. The entire point is that they aren't made correctly. You might even read the paragraph as acknowledging that it once worked, when it impressed observers.
> Consequently, the rhetorical paraphrasing of the passage into the comment dismissing nerds seems on point.
You can argue anything you want, but the argument here was made from a basis of facts. If the commentator wants to concede that their argument isn't based on the text itself, then they and you might have a point. But instead the rest of the argument isn't very believable. Which is the logic behind my argument in the first place.
> Objectively, the humanities has a poor track record of getting pissy and taking cheap shots at science as a viable supreme source of knowledge.
Again not relevant to the facts at hand. Especially since again they aren't making those statement. Otherwise we can bring anything into the discussion, from nationality to sat scores.
This is exactly why fact based discussions not only don't work, but don't happen on hacker news. Because you can just say something different. And that is how it always is. Someone posts a citation and someone else goes out of their way to debunk it. Then they just say something else. Next time no one bothers. Because the point isn't to have a fact based discussion, but to not be questioned on an already existing view. And that is what the article correctly caught on to.
> state[s] that well-executed, fact-supported, scientific arguments are a superior (or even valid) form of policy debate
We both agree that the article goes on at length about the recklessness of fact-based arguments on HN.
Furthermore, I point to two direct quotes that I characterize as anti-fact and elevating non-factual or (debatably in the case of the latter) semi-factual methods of discussion to the same level as fact-based discussion.
You decline to provide evidence rebutting those two points, and instead cite the "emphasis" of the surrounding paragraph as a reason those two points should be ignored.
Does that accurately describe your position?