Yes, they’re not as far gone as the strawman would suggest. They understand nutrition. But also they’re not as conservative and rigorous in their considerations as the original study.
I just want to point out that it’s their belief(s) that you’re evaluating, not their arguments (steel or straw) for those beliefs.
Belief 1: Apples are healthy.
Belief 2: We should redirect funding.
Why do you need to know the group’s median argument/justification? You can just evaluate each belief.
I mean my point is that having a stronger-than-justified belief in the healthiness of apples leads to certain conclusions that are wrong because the belief itself doesn’t correct map to reality. And knowing the ways in which that happens is important to predict what mistakes they might make.
I just want to point out that it’s their belief(s) that you’re evaluating, not their arguments (steel or straw) for those beliefs.
Belief 1: Apples are healthy.
Belief 2: We should redirect funding.
Why do you need to know the group’s median argument/justification? You can just evaluate each belief.
I mean my point is that having a stronger-than-justified belief in the healthiness of apples leads to certain conclusions that are wrong because the belief itself doesn’t correct map to reality. And knowing the ways in which that happens is important to predict what mistakes they might make.