Q: “CURT, HOW DO YOU HANDLE DEMANDS YOU DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS?” The economics of

Q: “CURT, HOW DO YOU HANDLE DEMANDS YOU DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS?”

The economics of answering questions. 😉

1) if I think the person is asking an honest question and I can answer him without extraordinary effort, I do so.

2) If I think the person is asking an honest question, but is being lazy by not doing the simple searches, I answer a bit snidely.

3) If I think the person is asking an honest question but the cost of ‘helping’ that person is too high, I ignore it, or simply say so.

4) If i think the person is challenging me, I state the truth: Truth survives criticism. It cannot be confirmed. One cannot, I cannot, defend a criticism against ignorance. One can only raise criticism if one possesses the knowledge to criticize. If one had the knowledge to criticize one would say so. If one asks for confirmation he shows (a) he is ignorant of the scientific method, (b) he lacks the knowledge to counter with an empirical or logical response showing how it cannot be true, or can be explained by more parsimonious statement, (c) he is really just imposing a cost on me by asking me to defend myself without offering a criticism to defend against. (d) therefore the individual is both incompetent, ignorant, and a liar.

5) if includes ridicule, I see it as an attempt at deception by imposing a cost on me. I attack ridicule.Then I restate the central argument. I repeat the process of returning the insult and restating the central argument – each time with minor variations – as a means of ‘chanting’ the truth, thereby ‘using’ the platform the individual has given me to (a) demonstrate his dishonesty, ignorance, and incompetence, and (b) getting across my message thru repetition.