Formulating these illustrates the key technique for productively engaging the obviously false, or the hopelessly muddled: make up simple frames, doesn’t matter if they are apt and capture the intended nuance, develop them enough to restate some of the claims in a coherent way, gain ability to clearly think about something related, even if it’s not the intended thing.
At best, you’ll capture a kernel of a truth in all the nonsense, even if it’s not actually there in the intended senses of the claims being made; and if it’s there, a seed for framing it should be easy to notice. At worst, you’ll give too much credence to some nonsense, so it’s best to give priority to understanding (what the claims you made up mean, which distinctions and arguments should be natural to consider important), not to knowing (whether you understand the intended claims and not just your own made up claims correctly, if the intended claims are true, which arguments are well-supported).
Formulating these illustrates the key technique for productively engaging the obviously false, or the hopelessly muddled: make up simple frames, doesn’t matter if they are apt and capture the intended nuance, develop them enough to restate some of the claims in a coherent way, gain ability to clearly think about something related, even if it’s not the intended thing.
At best, you’ll capture a kernel of a truth in all the nonsense, even if it’s not actually there in the intended senses of the claims being made; and if it’s there, a seed for framing it should be easy to notice. At worst, you’ll give too much credence to some nonsense, so it’s best to give priority to understanding (what the claims you made up mean, which distinctions and arguments should be natural to consider important), not to knowing (whether you understand the intended claims and not just your own made up claims correctly, if the intended claims are true, which arguments are well-supported).