10-08-2017, 03:30 PM
A HOTPE reply to me, in the Jones Act discussion, regarding supporting viewpoints:
“Not only as in unsubstantiated (assertion of) fact. But as in unsubstantiated (and erroneous) opinions. “Unsubstantiated, as in: 1) A statement is made; 2) Someone asks for proof, documentation, or a link for background concerning the statement; 3) No reply is offered
It's interesting that you're OK with the freedom to post anything here, even out of thin air....”
HOTPE comments a day earlier: “they... make no attempt to support what they've stated. Instead, they shift the discussion elsewhere.....and forget the previous string of unsubstantiated and erroneous comments....”
Quite the outburst. I never offered any sentiment about “freedom to post anything....” Nor did I insinuate anything on the topic.
More important is the broad topic of “unsubstantiated comments.” This charge has been raised repeatedly on Punatalk for months now by several critics. This matter is worth a review.
A reading of Punatalk threads reveals that posters almost always try to back up their sentiments. Some less effectively, some more so, but effort is there. Yet some critics reject the replies--the evidence, the logic. They just throw out more claims of lack of substantiation.
Punatalk poster: Evidence X supports Opinion Y.
Critic: No it doesn’t.
Poster: Yes it does.
Critic: No it doesn’t
Poster: Your counterpoints, please.
Critic: Substantiation.
Poster: What?
Critic: Substantiation. I want substantiation.......
An issue with "substantiate” (to provide evidence or support a claim) is that there's no objective standard for defining completion, i.e., substantiation. So the critics are using “substantiated” as “proved.” (So will I for this writing.) American Heritage Dictionary: "Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."
Opinions need not be substantiated. Only informed and supported with reasonable evidence or logic. Often known simply as “informed opinion.”
The TMT debate is worth a look. (I support the project.) The debate illustrates how some issues that appear purely factual are less so. TMT proponents repeatedly cited “lack of substantiation” and a list of “lies” that critics had voiced. Here are some: TMT will spill mercury into the environment...has military applications....threatens the aquifer....Lake Waiau will be used as water source.
Clear topics of fact here; substantiation (or very credible evidence) should be presented to opine. Here are two more “lies”:
“TMT is building on a burial site
The Saddle and summit access roads will have to be widened.”
Are these the exact words of the TMT critics? Or was this paraphrased to make the sentiment more extreme? If it is verbatim, the burial statement is problematic. But the lines of criticism have merit. If I were a TMT opponent and was asked to assist on advocacy, I might restate the above something like this:
1. Native Hawaiians regard the high elevations and mountain top of Mauna Kea, which have burial sites and a long history of cultural use, as sacred. The giant TMT project is further desecration to a natural environment already marred by 10-plus telescopes.
2. Even with decommissioning of some telescopes, the TMT project brings more development to the mountain top. Increased road traffic from both astronomers and tourists driving to the mountain top, in part to view the imposing new TMT structure, is likely. Eventual road improvements/expansion that further degrade the mountain environment are probable.
These are the core sentiments of the 2 items, IMO.
Item 1: If there is archeological evidence of Hawaiian burials at high elevations or storytelling/lore of Mauna Kea’s cultural significance--and I understand there is both--the opinion is sustainable. Religion does not require substantiation. And the assertion that some natural places are religiously or culturally important to native peoples’ belief systems generally has a low requirement of substantiation, if site use can be demonstrated. That is just the way it is.
Item 2: General concerns about traffic increases (and road improvements that often follow) or degradation of the natural ambiance of the mountain top have a much lower bar of proof. TMT will have impacts, as all large projects do. Protesters (usually) will assert some definite environmental impacts. But more often they cite possible impacts. Worries.
That's because in the long history of large development projects in Hawaii (and elsewhere) undesirable and sometimes unforeseen outcomes have emerged post completion. Repeatedly. And sometimes 10-20 years later. Might some activists make false claims? (Like Punatalk’s extraordinarily persistent TMT critic, just as a hypothetical?) Yes. But this does not negate the core concerns. Reasonable worries have a low bar of substantiation.
IMO, concerns 1 and 2 have some merit.
Another topic: My opinion (and the Star-Advertiser’s) on organic farms and rodents, which was derided as being unsubstantiated: Generally speaking organic farms offer greater hospitality to rodents because of organic farming practices. Apparently there is no study comparing the two types of farms (not sure it is a topic worth a study). The opinion is not proved by research.
So? The opinion is still reasonable, logically derived from the fact that some environments are indeed more hospitable to rodents than others. Might my opinion be wrong? Could be. But that does not make it baseless. Indeed it is fair to call this an open question.(Acknowledgment: My statement the other day that the opposing view was “futile” was inappropriate.)
The helicopter debate also had posts calling for proof from people being bothered by helicopters.
IMO, there are far too many demands for substantiation on Punatalk. This business appears to have originated with 1 or 2 posters, with other posters now chiming in. (A new Punatalk debating technique?)
Dismissing reasonable evidence for lack of hard proof is unwarranted. It is even worse when not-so-subtle insinuations of stupidity are included (for people supposedly failing to provide basic evidence). Seems to be getting pretty close to trolling here.
Edited to add: Written above: "Dismissing reasonable evidence for lack of hard proof is unwarranted." Clarification: That is dismissing out of hand, without rebuttal and counterpoints to make the contrary case.
“Not only as in unsubstantiated (assertion of) fact. But as in unsubstantiated (and erroneous) opinions. “Unsubstantiated, as in: 1) A statement is made; 2) Someone asks for proof, documentation, or a link for background concerning the statement; 3) No reply is offered
It's interesting that you're OK with the freedom to post anything here, even out of thin air....”
HOTPE comments a day earlier: “they... make no attempt to support what they've stated. Instead, they shift the discussion elsewhere.....and forget the previous string of unsubstantiated and erroneous comments....”
Quite the outburst. I never offered any sentiment about “freedom to post anything....” Nor did I insinuate anything on the topic.
More important is the broad topic of “unsubstantiated comments.” This charge has been raised repeatedly on Punatalk for months now by several critics. This matter is worth a review.
A reading of Punatalk threads reveals that posters almost always try to back up their sentiments. Some less effectively, some more so, but effort is there. Yet some critics reject the replies--the evidence, the logic. They just throw out more claims of lack of substantiation.
Punatalk poster: Evidence X supports Opinion Y.
Critic: No it doesn’t.
Poster: Yes it does.
Critic: No it doesn’t
Poster: Your counterpoints, please.
Critic: Substantiation.
Poster: What?
Critic: Substantiation. I want substantiation.......
An issue with "substantiate” (to provide evidence or support a claim) is that there's no objective standard for defining completion, i.e., substantiation. So the critics are using “substantiated” as “proved.” (So will I for this writing.) American Heritage Dictionary: "Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."
Opinions need not be substantiated. Only informed and supported with reasonable evidence or logic. Often known simply as “informed opinion.”
The TMT debate is worth a look. (I support the project.) The debate illustrates how some issues that appear purely factual are less so. TMT proponents repeatedly cited “lack of substantiation” and a list of “lies” that critics had voiced. Here are some: TMT will spill mercury into the environment...has military applications....threatens the aquifer....Lake Waiau will be used as water source.
Clear topics of fact here; substantiation (or very credible evidence) should be presented to opine. Here are two more “lies”:
“TMT is building on a burial site
The Saddle and summit access roads will have to be widened.”
Are these the exact words of the TMT critics? Or was this paraphrased to make the sentiment more extreme? If it is verbatim, the burial statement is problematic. But the lines of criticism have merit. If I were a TMT opponent and was asked to assist on advocacy, I might restate the above something like this:
1. Native Hawaiians regard the high elevations and mountain top of Mauna Kea, which have burial sites and a long history of cultural use, as sacred. The giant TMT project is further desecration to a natural environment already marred by 10-plus telescopes.
2. Even with decommissioning of some telescopes, the TMT project brings more development to the mountain top. Increased road traffic from both astronomers and tourists driving to the mountain top, in part to view the imposing new TMT structure, is likely. Eventual road improvements/expansion that further degrade the mountain environment are probable.
These are the core sentiments of the 2 items, IMO.
Item 1: If there is archeological evidence of Hawaiian burials at high elevations or storytelling/lore of Mauna Kea’s cultural significance--and I understand there is both--the opinion is sustainable. Religion does not require substantiation. And the assertion that some natural places are religiously or culturally important to native peoples’ belief systems generally has a low requirement of substantiation, if site use can be demonstrated. That is just the way it is.
Item 2: General concerns about traffic increases (and road improvements that often follow) or degradation of the natural ambiance of the mountain top have a much lower bar of proof. TMT will have impacts, as all large projects do. Protesters (usually) will assert some definite environmental impacts. But more often they cite possible impacts. Worries.
That's because in the long history of large development projects in Hawaii (and elsewhere) undesirable and sometimes unforeseen outcomes have emerged post completion. Repeatedly. And sometimes 10-20 years later. Might some activists make false claims? (Like Punatalk’s extraordinarily persistent TMT critic, just as a hypothetical?) Yes. But this does not negate the core concerns. Reasonable worries have a low bar of substantiation.
IMO, concerns 1 and 2 have some merit.
Another topic: My opinion (and the Star-Advertiser’s) on organic farms and rodents, which was derided as being unsubstantiated: Generally speaking organic farms offer greater hospitality to rodents because of organic farming practices. Apparently there is no study comparing the two types of farms (not sure it is a topic worth a study). The opinion is not proved by research.
So? The opinion is still reasonable, logically derived from the fact that some environments are indeed more hospitable to rodents than others. Might my opinion be wrong? Could be. But that does not make it baseless. Indeed it is fair to call this an open question.(Acknowledgment: My statement the other day that the opposing view was “futile” was inappropriate.)
The helicopter debate also had posts calling for proof from people being bothered by helicopters.
IMO, there are far too many demands for substantiation on Punatalk. This business appears to have originated with 1 or 2 posters, with other posters now chiming in. (A new Punatalk debating technique?)
Dismissing reasonable evidence for lack of hard proof is unwarranted. It is even worse when not-so-subtle insinuations of stupidity are included (for people supposedly failing to provide basic evidence). Seems to be getting pretty close to trolling here.
Edited to add: Written above: "Dismissing reasonable evidence for lack of hard proof is unwarranted." Clarification: That is dismissing out of hand, without rebuttal and counterpoints to make the contrary case.
