The guy in the black hat is evading the question of providing an example that’s as equally open to criticism as that which he criticizes, and engaging in (feminine) Marxist critique (gossiping shaming rallying, ridiculing, moralizing, psychologizing, special pleading – and yes, straw-manning, evading the question, conflating approval with truth and disapproval with falsehood. I would eat this panel for lunch. But then, the stacking of the panel.
Eugenics wasn’t wrong by the way. The empiricist on the left is being set up, but he’s not making the point that science is an adversarial marketplace that produces truth over time.
The idealists on the right are presuming (feminine) consent and approval will produce better results IN TIME than an adversarial marketplace for ideas. What’s really going on? Advocacy for a continuation of european tradition(masculine) of continuous rapid evolution and the demand for continuous personal adaptation as the cost of the gains of that evolution, vs the anti-European(feminine) tradition of resistance to continuous rapid evolution and the demand for personal adaptation because the costs are increases in interpersonal friction as we adapt to new understanding.
In other words, the empiricist is evolutionary(evolutionary, quality, eugenic) and the non-empiricists are anti-evolutionary (devolutionary, quantity, dysgenic).
