That isn't relevant either. I never said it did nor does any of my arguments rest on that. You and "cloakandswagger" are making claims that aren't supported by article, which I have addressed, and should back those up to have an argument.
This is exactly why fact based discussions not only don't work, but don't happen on hacker news. Because you can just say something different. And that is how it always is. Someone posts a citation and someone else goes out of their way to debunk it. Then they just say something else. Next time no one bothers. Because the point isn't to have a fact based discussion, but to not be questioned on an already existing view. And that is what the article correctly caught on to.
So you decline to provide evidence that the article positively
> state[s] that well-executed, fact-supported, scientific arguments are a superior (or even valid) form of policy debate
We both agree that the article goes on at length about the recklessness of fact-based arguments on HN.
Furthermore, I point to two direct quotes that I characterize as anti-fact and elevating non-factual or (debatably in the case of the latter) semi-factual methods of discussion to the same level as fact-based discussion.
You decline to provide evidence rebutting those two points, and instead cite the "emphasis" of the surrounding paragraph as a reason those two points should be ignored.
The argument appears to be that we need more emotion and intuition, and less facts and data. It's absurd, and quite scary. I have never made a good decision while in an emotional state, and my father warned me about doing so in my teens; though he was too subtle for me to get the point being made.
Still, I react to extremist rhetoric on HN with vitriol that is often unhelpful. During Obama's admin, I was actively flagging political content, and the extremist stuff was kept at bay. We were also calling out FB and Zynga/ Farmville and their dark patterns, not calling for government action, but personal discipline to stay away.
This is exactly why fact based discussions not only don't work, but don't happen on hacker news. Because you can just say something different. And that is how it always is. Someone posts a citation and someone else goes out of their way to debunk it. Then they just say something else. Next time no one bothers. Because the point isn't to have a fact based discussion, but to not be questioned on an already existing view. And that is what the article correctly caught on to.