Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I am sure this is old stuff.
Recently I have seen three seperate applications of what I call the revese finger moon argument.
I label the classic finger moon argument as being one where someone attacks a model based upon unproven juxtaposition of factors. Stating that there is not a coincidence without evidence , confirmation bias and straw man arguments are all of this type. Someone mistakes thier finger for the moon and procedes merrily on thier way.
But recently I have noticed a new line of argument (which is my new recognition, not the argument) and I have labeled it a reverse finger moon argument.
It goes like this:
-the model is not reality (magnetic reconnection)
-there is a popular notion is 'obvious' that you are ignoring (mind and psychology)
-the model is an abstraction (mobius strip)
So while I think the finger/moon argument can be labeled as such I think I need a pithy little label for this reverse argument.
Thanks
Recently I have seen three seperate applications of what I call the revese finger moon argument.
I label the classic finger moon argument as being one where someone attacks a model based upon unproven juxtaposition of factors. Stating that there is not a coincidence without evidence , confirmation bias and straw man arguments are all of this type. Someone mistakes thier finger for the moon and procedes merrily on thier way.
But recently I have noticed a new line of argument (which is my new recognition, not the argument) and I have labeled it a reverse finger moon argument.
It goes like this:
-the model is not reality (magnetic reconnection)
-there is a popular notion is 'obvious' that you are ignoring (mind and psychology)
-the model is an abstraction (mobius strip)
So while I think the finger/moon argument can be labeled as such I think I need a pithy little label for this reverse argument.
Thanks
Last edited: