<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (cshalizi)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from cshalizi</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/theo.12047"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190936907.001.0001/oso-9780190936907?rskey=rqwuiK&amp;result=11"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/straw-man-arguments-a-study-in-fallacy-theory/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01271-w"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pDtzV7OzH3cnB64EPj1iyk3JUpmWqhOK/view"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691216881/rights-as-weapons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198754909.001.0001"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306312720970282"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-019-09506-6"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11452"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306312719857156"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnz46"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/reductive-reading"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3225236"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/07/21/cultural-studies-ironically-is-something-of-a-colonizer/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2017/05/02/legitimate-versions-of-bret-stephens-column/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://tompepinsky.com/2017/03/01/an-interpretive-ethnography-of-interpretive-ethnography/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/43/can-truth-survive-trump/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088825"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/what-argument"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/system"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;aid=10293503&amp;fileId=S2053447716000099"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo21174162"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://newleftreview.org/II/92/franco-moretti-dominique-pestre-bankspeak"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/53333-philosophy-between-the-lines-the-lost-history-of-esoteric-writing/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11245-013-9174-y"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/45997-errors-of-reasoning-naturalizing-the-logic-of-inferenc/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://global.oup.com/academic/product/scientists-as-prophets-9780199857098?cc=us&amp;lang=en"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/bad-faith-and-civility-health-care-edition/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://journal.sjdm.org/12/12810/jdm12810.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9871.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.waggish.org/2012/the-sound-of-two-hands-clapping/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/25/occams-phaser/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/COLI_a_00124?mi=3fxgzl&amp;af=R&amp;searchText=underage%2Bdrinking"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thehairpin.com/2012/08/how-your-sweet-valley-high-gets-made/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kitwhitfield.blogspot.com/2012/01/first-sentences-haunting-of-hill-house.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520267275"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/19/the-correct-way-to-argue-with-milton-friedman/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://andrewgelman.com/2011/07/one_of_the_easi/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.princeton.edu/~reinhard/pdfs/INFANT_CARE-ASSIGNMENT_ON_HEALTH_ECONOMICS_FALL_2006.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://engl.iastate.edu/directory/gdwilson"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/SperberWilsonMetaphor.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/MercierSperberWhydohumansreason.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=559:conversation-hackers-trolls-argumentation&amp;catid=32:oliviers-blog&amp;Itemid=34"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1901"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://sanseverything.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/reckless-falsehoods.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://michaelperelman.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/x-eff.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/daed.2009.138.3.44"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/05/sotomayor-vs-cardozo.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/29/the-rhetoric-of-bearing-risk/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/03/liquidity.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/katz/pubs/FromHow2Why_pt2.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/katz/pubs/FromHow2Why_pt1.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1058"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.robmacdougall.org/index.php/2008/11/american-for-a-day/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thepoorman.net/2008/10/13/observations-on-recent-trends-in-political-discourse/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8323.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262026147"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~upne/0-8195-6867-8.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/why-do-republic.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/the_end_of_argument/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://istherenosininit.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/is-magic-ever-magic-to-the-magician/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/04/the_framing_fracas.php"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/faculty/Driskill/DeconstructingfreetradeAug27a2007.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/call-the-metaphor-police/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/seminars/kaufer/index.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2008/03/story-of-fractal-wrongness.html"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/theo.12047">
    <title>The Dark Side of the Loon. Explaining the Temptations of Obscurantism - Buekens - 2015 - Theoria - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2024-02-01T16:10:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/theo.12047</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["After contrasting obscurantism with bullshit, we explore some ways in which obscurantism is typically justified by investigating a notorious test-case: defences of Lacanian psychoanalysis. Obscurantism abuses the reader's natural sense of curiosity and interpretive charity with the promise of deep and profound insights about a designated subject matter that is often vague or elusive. When the attempt to understand what the speaker means requires excessive hermeneutic efforts, interpreters are reluctant to halt their quest for meaning. We diagnose this as a case of psychological loss aversion, in particular, the aversion to acknowledging that there was no hidden meaning after all, or that whatever meaning found was projected onto the text by the reader herself."]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric improvement_of_the_understanding barely-comprehensible_metaphysics epistemology via:PeterErwin</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c9cf38adf836/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:improvement_of_the_understanding"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:barely-comprehensible_metaphysics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:epistemology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:PeterErwin"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children">
    <title>Lie-to-children - Wikipedia</title>
    <dc:date>2023-11-30T16:34:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[--- This alleges that the phrase originates in Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen's (good) book _The Collapse of Chaos_.  It helpfully provides page numbers.  The phrase does not appear on those pages.  (Wikipedia even links to an archive.org scan of the pages where you can see that it doesn't, but I just checked against my old paperback copy.)  The phrase does not appear in the index to the book.  "Explanation" does, and none of those pages contain the phrase.  Google Books search for the book doesn't show me enough to be certain but it doesn't look good.

Wikipedia also cites two articles by a literary scholar studying Stewart and Cohen's collaboration with Pratchett (_Science of Discworld_).  But the one of those articles I can access _doesn't claim_ that the phrase originated with Stewart and Cohen, just that they use the expository tactic.  (The other one might go into this, I can't say.)

I strongly suspect that the phrase originated _with Pratchett_, in his novels, and that Stewart and Cohen adopted it for the collaboration, as an instance of their-kind-of-thing.]]></description>
<dc:subject>lies_told_to_children pedagogy oh_wikipedia rhetoric</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:e75e482a65fa/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:lies_told_to_children"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:pedagogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:oh_wikipedia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190936907.001.0001/oso-9780190936907?rskey=rqwuiK&amp;result=11">
    <title>What Do We Mean When We Talk about Meaning? - Oxford Scholarship</title>
    <dc:date>2022-07-04T01:54:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190936907.001.0001/oso-9780190936907?rskey=rqwuiK&amp;result=11</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["This book explores the word meaning as it is used in such expressions as “the meaning of life,” “the search for meaning,” “ultimate meaning.” In many of the metaphysical contexts where we find the word meaning, it appears to mean “purpose,” “value,” “goal,” “direction,” and even “God.” The book answers the following questions: How did the English word meaning come to carry these various sub-senses, given that its original sense has to do with signifying? When did the notion of a “meaning of life” arise in English and other languages? How does the English word meaning, which is a verbal noun, differ in these usages from the roughly equivalent words in other European languages? How did the word evolve in usage over time? How has it been used in recent decades? The book’s chapters show that the usage is relatively recent, arising in the late eighteenth century in German Romanticism and passing into English in the early nineteenth century; that the English word functions differently from the way its European near-equivalents do, thanks to its ability to suggest “signifying” and hence “interpretation”; that it is seldom defined and hence ambiguous and polyvalent; that it functions today in a wide variety of contexts, including psychotherapy and the continuing conversation between secularism and religion; and that ambiguity and polyvalence are actually the source of its power, since those qualities allow for flexibility in the way the word is understood."

--- Cassedy's book on structuralism was great.]]></description>
<dc:subject>in_NB philosophy rhetoric history_of_ideas downloaded books:recommended have_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:631f0e8919e9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:history_of_ideas"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:recommended"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/straw-man-arguments-a-study-in-fallacy-theory/">
    <title>Bloomsbury Collections - Straw Man Arguments - A Study in Fallacy Theory</title>
    <dc:date>2022-06-13T18:53:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/straw-man-arguments-a-study-in-fallacy-theory/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["This book analyses the straw man fallacy and its deployment in philosophical reasoning. While commonly invoked in both academic dialogue and public discourse, it has not until now received the attention it deserves as a rhetorical device.
"Scott Aikin and John Casey propose that straw manning essentially consists in expressing distorted representations of one℃s critical interlocutor. To this end, the straw man comprises three dialectical forms, and not only the one that is usually suggested: the straw man, the weak man and the hollow man. Moreover, they demonstrate that straw manning is unique among fallacies as it has no particular logical form in itself, because it is an instance of inappropriate meta-argument, or argument about arguments. They discuss the importance of the onlooking audience to the successful deployment of the straw man, reasoning that the existence of an audience complicates the dialectical boundaries of argument.
"Providing a lively, provocative and thorough analysis of the straw man fallacy, this book will appeal to postgraduates and researchers alike, working in a range of fields including fallacies, rhetoric, argumentation theory and informal logic."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted logic rhetoric books:suggest_to_library</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:a9b9298a16ce/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:logic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:suggest_to_library"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01271-w">
    <title>Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a chatbot | Nature Human Behaviour</title>
    <dc:date>2022-02-15T14:56:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01271-w</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Discussion is more convincing than standard, unidirectional messaging, but its interactive nature makes it difficult to scale up. We created a chatbot to emulate the most important traits of discussion. A simple argument pointing out the existence of a scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) already led to more positive attitudes towards GMOs, compared with a control message. Providing participants with good arguments rebutting the most common counterarguments against GMOs led to much more positive attitudes towards GMOs, whether the participants could immediately see all the arguments or could select the most relevant arguments in a chatbot. Participants holding the most negative attitudes displayed more attitude change in favour of GMOs. Participants updated their beliefs when presented with good arguments, but we found no evidence that an interactive chatbot proves more persuasive than a list of arguments and counterarguments."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB rhetoric experimental_psychology re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator mercier.hugo via:henry_farrell</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:eb07d829d262/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experimental_psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mercier.hugo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pDtzV7OzH3cnB64EPj1iyk3JUpmWqhOK/view">
    <title>Precis Mercier &amp; Sperber.pdf - Google Drive</title>
    <dc:date>2022-01-11T15:37:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pDtzV7OzH3cnB64EPj1iyk3JUpmWqhOK/view</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Precis of their great, great book.
--- Probably via:henryfarrell but tab has been hanging open so long I can't recall]]></description>
<dc:subject>have_skimmed sperber.dan mercier.hugo psychology social_life_of_the_mind rationality rhetoric evolutionary_psychology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:886a004f9b58/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_skimmed"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sperber.dan"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mercier.hugo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rationality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evolutionary_psychology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691216881/rights-as-weapons">
    <title>Rights as Weapons | Princeton University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2021-06-28T04:28:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691216881/rights-as-weapons</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Rights are usually viewed as defensive concepts representing mankind’s highest aspirations to protect the vulnerable and uplift the downtrodden. But since the Enlightenment, political combatants have also used rights belligerently, to batter despised communities, demolish existing institutions, and smash opposing ideas. Delving into a range of historical and contemporary conflicts from all areas of the globe, Rights as Weapons focuses on the underexamined ways in which the powerful wield rights as aggressive weapons against the weak.
"Clifford Bob looks at how political forces use rights as rallying cries: naturalizing novel claims as rights inherent in humanity, absolutizing them as trumps over rival interests or community concerns, universalizing them as transcultural and transhistorical, and depoliticizing them as concepts beyond debate. He shows how powerful proponents employ rights as camouflage to cover ulterior motives, as crowbars to break rival coalitions, as blockades to suppress subordinate groups, as spears to puncture discrete policies, and as dynamite to explode whole societies. And he demonstrates how the targets of rights campaigns repulse such assaults, using their own rights-like weapons: denying the abuses they are accused of, constructing rival rights to protect themselves, portraying themselves as victims rather than violators, and repudiating authoritative decisions against them. This sophisticated framework is applied to a diverse range of examples, including nineteenth-century voting rights movements; the American civil rights movement; nationalist, populist, and religious movements in today’s Europe; and internationalized conflicts related to Palestinian self-determination, animal rights, gay rights, and transgender rights."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted political_science rhetoric law books:suggest_to_library</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:9fcaa35de3ce/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:law"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:suggest_to_library"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198754909.001.0001">
    <title>Lucretius and the Language of Nature - Oxford Scholarship</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-16T05:26:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198754909.001.0001</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Lucretius’ Epicurean poem De Rerum Natura (‘On the Nature of Things’), written in the middle of the first century BC, made a fundamental and lasting contribution to the language of Latin philosophy. This book is a study of Lucretius’ linguistic innovation and creativity. Lucretius is depicted as a linguistic trailblazer, extending and augmenting the technical language of Latin in order to describe the Epicurean universe of atoms and void in all its complexity and sublimity. A core thesis of the book is that a detailed understanding of Epicurean linguistic theory will bring with it a greater appreciation of Lucretius’ own language. Accordingly, the book features an in-depth reconstruction of certain core features of Epicurean linguistic theory. Elements of Lucretius’ style that are discussed include his attitudes to and use of figurative language (especially metaphor); his explorations, both explicit and implicit, of Latin etymology; his uses of Greek; and his creative deployment of compounds and prefixed words. His practice is related throughout not only to the underlying Epicurean theory but also to contemporary Roman attitudes to style and language."]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted lucretius rhetoric in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:e73e46f96768/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:lucretius"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5">
    <title>A Game Designer’s Analysis Of QAnon | by Rabbit Rabbit | curiouserinstitute | Medium</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-14T18:51:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["There is no reality here. No actual solution in the real world. Instead, this is a breadcrumb trail AWAY from reality. Away from actual solutions and towards a dangerous psychological rush. It works very well because when you “figure it out yourself” you own it. You experience the thrill of discovery, the excitement of the rabbit hole, the acceptance of a community that loves and respects you. Because you were convinced to “connect the dots yourself” you can see the absolute logic of it. This is the conclusion you arrived at."

--- A malicious part of me is remembering all the constructivist pedagogy I read in the 1990s and nodding along.

"It’s like a Darwinian fiction lab, where the best stories and the most engaging and satisfying misinterpretations rise to the top and are then elaborated upon for the next version."

"Each breadcrumb amounts to a creative writing prompt. A conspiracy connect the dots.
It gives players a doable task they can all collaborate on."

--- Now, towards the end, the author does get into a "this must be deliberate" bit, but I think they're under-rating their own Darwinian insight above.  Of course once something like this self-organizes, various people are going to try to ride it and bend it to their ends.  But that this _did_ self-organize seems only too plausible to me.]]></description>
<dc:subject>conspiracy_theories psychoceramics game_design rhetoric epidemiology_of_representations narrative_communities re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator social_movements networked_life</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7166022577d8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:conspiracy_theories"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:psychoceramics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:game_design"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:epidemiology_of_representations"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:narrative_communities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_movements"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306312720970282">
    <title>The bad expert - Paige L Sweet, Danielle Giffort, 2020</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-17T01:46:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306312720970282</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["We focus on two cases in which participants narrate and perform a new culture of expertise by constructing a bad expert, a reviled or dangerous figure of scientific credibility gone wrong. We show that a key mechanism in the construction of expertise cultures is the use of antithesis performances, which are performances of scientific and professional credibility that rely on telling stories about a scientific enemy or ostracized Other. By performing the antithesis of the bad expert, actors help generate turning points in expertise, allowing new cultures of expertise to emerge. Our two case studies are: (1) feminist therapeutic expertise related to domestic violence, and (2) the revival of psychedelic medicine. In explicating these cases, we link the jurisdictional model of expertise (from the sociology of professions) with the network model of expertise (from science and technology studies): Cultural factors such as scientific narratives and embodied performances link together expert domains and forge new boundaries around expert practice."]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric science_as_a_social_process expertise expertise_and_science_in_democracy in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:6b751b241611/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_as_a_social_process"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:expertise"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:expertise_and_science_in_democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-019-09506-6">
    <title>The Rhetoric and Reality of Anthropomorphism in Artificial Intelligence | SpringerLink</title>
    <dc:date>2019-10-24T15:58:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-019-09506-6</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Artificial intelligence (AI) has historically been conceptualized in anthropomorphic terms. Some algorithms deploy biomimetic designs in a deliberate attempt to effect a sort of digital isomorphism of the human brain. Others leverage more general learning strategies that happen to coincide with popular theories of cognitive science and social epistemology. In this paper, I challenge the anthropomorphic credentials of the neural network algorithm, whose similarities to human cognition I argue are vastly overstated and narrowly construed. I submit that three alternative supervised learning methods—namely lasso penalties, bagging, and boosting—offer subtler, more interesting analogies to human reasoning as both an individual and a social phenomenon. Despite the temptation to fall back on anthropomorphic tropes when discussing AI, however, I conclude that such rhetoric is at best misleading and at worst downright dangerous. The impulse to humanize algorithms is an obstacle to properly conceptualizing the ethical challenges posed by emerging technologies."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB anthropomorphism artificial_intelligence neural_networks ensemble_methods lasso rhetoric</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c79f17e90fab/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:anthropomorphism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:artificial_intelligence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:neural_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ensemble_methods"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:lasso"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11452">
    <title>[1903.11452] Lexical convergence and collective identities within Facebook echo chambers</title>
    <dc:date>2019-10-01T16:31:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11452</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Recent studies, targeting Facebook, showed the tendency of users to interact with information adhering to their preferred narrative and to ignore dissenting information. Primarily driven by confirmation bias, users tend to join homogeneous and polarized clusters (echo chambers) where they cooperate to frame and reinforce a like-minded system of beliefs, thus facilitating misinformation cascades. To gain a deeper understanding of these phenomena, in this work we analyze the lexicons used by the communities of users emerging on Facebook around two very conflicting narratives: science and conspiracy. We show how the words exhibiting a significant differentiation in frequency from one community to another, provide important insights about the kind of information processed by the two groups of users and about the overall sentiment expressed in their comments. Furthermore, by focusing on comment threads, a context of interaction mediated by the posts, we observe a strong positive correlation between the lexical convergence of co-commenters and their number of interactions, both in the case of co-commenters polarized towards the same content as well as in the case of co-commenters with opposing polarization. Nevertheless, the analysis of how lexical convergence evolves through time suggests that such a trend is a proxy of the emergence of collective identities in the case of co-commenters polarized toward the same content, whereas during cross interactions it is more likely due to the need for a common vocabulary to achieve communication than to real opinion convergence. Nonetheless, the fact that even users with opposing views try to coordinate their lexical choices when joining a discussion, suggests that a dialogue between competing parties is possible and indeed it should be stimulated in an attempt to smooth polarization and to reduce both the risk and the consequences of misinformation."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_media social_life_of_the_mind text_mining linguistics rhetoric networked_life re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator joint_modeling_of_text_and_networks echo_chambers</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:d5561a19cc88/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:text_mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:linguistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:joint_modeling_of_text_and_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:echo_chambers"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306312719857156">
    <title>Unconventional ideas conventionally arranged: A study of grant proposals for exceptional research - Axel Philipps, Leonie Weißenborn,</title>
    <dc:date>2019-09-26T17:23:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306312719857156</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Exceptional research involves exceptional, rather than established, approaches, theories, methods and technologies. Nevertheless, to gain funding for such research, scientists are forced to outline unconventional ideas in ways that still relate to recognized concepts and findings, as well as adhering to the conventional requirements of relevant fields of research. Surprisingly, we know very little about the approaches scientists take to overcome these obstacles. In this article, we investigate how applicants use rhetorical moves and argumentative patterns to rationalize their unorthodox ideas and how they rhetorically combine their hypotheses or ideas with those of previous research that used specific methods and recognized technologies. The study concentrates on neuroscience grant proposals in Germany for a funding programme intended to support exceptional research. In addition, we look for the argumentative patterns favoured by members of and reviewers for the organization’s funding programme in order to understand if the successful applications share rhetorical characteristics. An analysis of 52 applications disclosed four different argumentative patterns: (1) solving practical problems, (2) exploring specific phenomena, (3) expanding confirmed knowledge and (4) offering an alternative theory. Only one persuasive strategy explicitly challenges established theories by proposing alternatives. Despite this, the funding programme continued to ask for radical and extraordinary ideas and many scientists continued to present potentially ground-breaking ideas that did not invalidate earlier work."

--- Surely the cynical explanation is that the funders neither really want to support radical ideas (because: they're mostly bad ideas), nor do the proposers want to pursue them (because: they're mostly not radical), but everyone wants to _pretend_ to be radical...
(But I should read this rather than being reflexively cynical.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB sociology_of_science peer_review innovation rhetoric science_as_a_social_process</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:76b668ac6025/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sociology_of_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:peer_review"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_as_a_social_process"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnz46">
    <title>Discipline and Debate: The Language of Violence in a Tibetan Buddhist Monastery on JSTOR</title>
    <dc:date>2019-08-24T16:35:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnz46</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>to:NB to_read downloaded buddhism academia rhetoric logic anthropology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:5427dda248c7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:buddhism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:logic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:anthropology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/reductive-reading">
    <title>Reductive Reading</title>
    <dc:date>2018-08-20T19:45:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/reductive-reading</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["What is to be gained by reading George Eliot’s Middlemarch from an Excel spreadsheet, or the novels of Charles Dickens through a few hundred dialogue tags—those he said/she saids that bring his characters to life? Sarah Danielle Allison’s Reductive Reading argues that the greatest gift the computational analysis of texts has given to traditional criticism is not computational at all. Rather, one of the most powerful ways to generate subtle reading is to be reductive; that is, to approach literary works with specific questions and a clear roadmap of how to look for the answers.
"Allison examines how patterns that form little part of our conscious experience of reading nevertheless structure our experience of books. Exploring Victorian moralizing at the level of the grammatical clause, she also reveals how linguistic patterns comment on the story in the process of narrating it. Delving into The London Quarterly Review, as well as the work of Eliot, Dickens, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Anthony Trollope, William Makepeace Thackeray, and other canonical Victorian writers, the book models how to study nebulous and complex stylistic effects.
"A manifesto for and a model of how digital analysis can provide daringly simple approaches to complex literary problems, Reductive Reading introduces a counterintuitive computational perspective to debates about the value of fiction and the ethical representation of people in literature."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted rhetoric literary_history</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:159424775d95/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:literary_history"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3225236">
    <title>Mine the Gap: Bitcoin and the Maintenance of Trustlessness by Gili Vidan, Vili Lehdonvirta :: SSRN</title>
    <dc:date>2018-08-06T17:38:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3225236</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Subscribing to a techno-utopian discourse replacing institutions and experts with “trust in code,” digital alternative currency Bitcoin is pitched as a “math-based money” governed by incorruptible code rather than human regulators. In three cases, which occurred between 2013 and 2015, we examine this system at moments of breakdown. In contrast to the discourse, we find that power is concentrated to critical sites and individuals who manage the system through ad hoc negotiations, and who users must therefore implicitly trust—a contrast we call Bitcoin’s “promissory gap.” But even in the face of such contradictions between premise and reality, the discourse is maintained. We identify four authorizing strategies used in this work: conflating people with devices, assuming actors conform to notions of economic rationality, appealing to technical expertise, and explaining contradictions as temporary bugs. We contend that these strategies are mobilized widely to legitimize a variety of applications of algorithmic regulation and peer production projects."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB institutions rhetoric bitcoin via:?</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f119c723196e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:bitcoin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:?"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/07/21/cultural-studies-ironically-is-something-of-a-colonizer/">
    <title>cultural studies, ironically, is something of a colonizer – the ANOVA</title>
    <dc:date>2017-07-28T00:02:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/07/21/cultural-studies-ironically-is-something-of-a-colonizer/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>deboer.frederik academia cultural_studies rhetoric</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:47f74892a6c9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:deboer.frederik"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cultural_studies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2017/05/02/legitimate-versions-of-bret-stephens-column/">
    <title>Legitimate Versions of Bret Stephens’ Column | Easily Distracted</title>
    <dc:date>2017-07-19T20:14:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2017/05/02/legitimate-versions-of-bret-stephens-column/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>rhetoric running_dogs_of_reaction climate_change why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_press_corps why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_intelligentsia moral_responsibility have_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:1f48640d4eba/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:running_dogs_of_reaction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:climate_change"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_press_corps"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_intelligentsia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:moral_responsibility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://tompepinsky.com/2017/03/01/an-interpretive-ethnography-of-interpretive-ethnography/">
    <title>An Interpretive Ethnography of Interpretive Ethnography | Tom Pepinsky</title>
    <dc:date>2017-03-16T15:28:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://tompepinsky.com/2017/03/01/an-interpretive-ethnography-of-interpretive-ethnography/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>funny:academic funny:malicious ethnography humanities rhetoric</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:33c93ca6f1f8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:academic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:malicious"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ethnography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/43/can-truth-survive-trump/">
    <title>Can Truth Survive Trump? : Democracy Journal</title>
    <dc:date>2016-11-23T03:22:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/43/can-truth-survive-trump/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Trump’s success has demonstrated the potential for an illiberal democracy predicated on denial of unwelcome truths. Liberal democracy cannot endure if such denial goes unchallenged. But first we must reckon with our own denial. We refused to believe that this could happen. We too were blind; disaster has forced us to see. To cope with this catastrophe, we will need an amazing grace, which I am not at all sure we are capable of mustering. For all our misgivings, we believed that, in the end, truth would overcome. It did not. The realization that this could happen here will cast a pall over us for quite some time. I doubt I will live to see its end."]]></description>
<dc:subject>democracy rhetoric running_dogs_of_reaction us_politics trump.donald goldhammer.arthur</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:59f73d46a866/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:running_dogs_of_reaction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:trump.donald"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:goldhammer.arthur"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088825">
    <title>Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics — Jens Beckert | Harvard University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2016-06-15T17:23:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088825</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In a capitalist system, consumers, investors, and corporations orient their activities toward a future that contains opportunities and risks. How actors assess uncertainty is a problem that economists have tried to solve through general equilibrium and rational expectations theory. Powerful as these analytical tools are, they underestimate the future’s unknowability by assuming that markets, in the aggregate, correctly forecast what is to come."

Jens Beckert adds a new chapter to the theory of capitalism by demonstrating how fictional expectations drive modern economies—or throw them into crisis when the imagined futures fail to materialize. Collectively held images of how the future will unfold are critical because they free economic actors from paralyzing doubt, enabling them to commit resources and coordinate decisions even if those expectations prove inaccurate. Beckert distinguishes fictional expectations from performativity theory, which holds that predictions tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies. Economic forecasts are important not because they produce the futures they envision but because they create the expectations that generate economic activity in the first place. Actors pursue money, investments, innovations, and consumption only if they believe the objects obtained through market exchanges will retain value. We accept money because we believe in its future purchasing power. We accept the risk of capital investments and innovation because we expect profit. And we purchase consumer goods based on dreams of satisfaction.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted economics psychology cultural_criticism rhetoric color_me_skeptical</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:a0141b13cace/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cultural_criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/what-argument">
    <title>What Is the Argument? | The MIT Press</title>
    <dc:date>2016-06-02T21:45:14+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/what-argument</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The best way to introduce students to philosophy and philosophical discourse is to have them read and wrestle with original sources. This textbook explores philosophy through detailed argument analyses of texts by philosophers from Plato to Strawson. It presents a novel and transparent method of analysis that will teach students not only how to understand and evaluate philosophers’ arguments but also how to construct such arguments themselves. Students will learn to read a text and discover what the philosopher thinks, why the philosopher thinks it, and whether the suporting argument is good.
"Students learn argument analysis through argument diagrams, with color-coding of the argument’s various elements—conclusion, claims, and “indicator phrases.” (An online “mini-course” in argument diagramming and argument diagramming software are both freely available online.) The original text and the analysis appear side by side, so the student can easily follow the analysis of the argument. Each chapter ends with exercises and reading questions.
"After a general introduction to philosophy and logic and an explanation of argument analysis, the book presents selections from primary sources, arranged by topics that correspond to contemporary debates, with detailed analysis and evaluation. These topics include philosophy of religion, epistemology, theory of mind, free will and determinism, and ethics; authors include Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Ryle, Fodor, Dennett, Searle, and others. What Is the Argument? not only introduces students to great philosophical thinkers, it also teaches them the essential skill of critical thinking."

--- I am, like a grown-up, resisting the temptation to send various stats. & ML graduate students down the stairs and to the left to sit in on this course.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted rhetoric logic philosophy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:de8232bba403/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:logic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:philosophy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/system">
    <title>System | The MIT Press</title>
    <dc:date>2016-06-02T21:04:33+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/system</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["A system can describe what we see (the solar system), operate a computer (Windows 10), or be made on a page (the fourteen engineered lines of a sonnet). In this book, Clifford Siskin shows that system is best understood as a genre—a form that works physically in the world to mediate our efforts to understand it. Indeed, many Enlightenment authors published works they called “system” to compete with the essay and the treatise. Drawing on the history of system from Galileo’s “message from the stars” and Newton’s “system of the world” to today’s “computational universe,” Siskin illuminates the role that the genre of system has played in the shaping and reshaping of modern knowledge. 
"Previous engagements with systems have involved making them, using them, or imagining better ones. Siskin offers an innovative perspective by investigating system itself. He considers the past and present, moving from the “system of the world” to “a world full of systems.” He traces the turn to system in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and describes this primary form of Enlightenment as a mediator of political, cultural, and social modernity—pointing to the moment when people began to “blame the system” for working both too well (“you can’t beat the system”) and not well enough (it always seems to “break down”). Throughout, his touchstones are: what system is and how it has changed; how it has mediated knowledge; and how it has worked in the world."

--- The alternative would be that "system" is now a word too vague to be of much use, except for sounding more dignified than "thing'.  (I admit that, e.g., "theory of dynamical things" is more awkward than "dynamical systems theory", but deny that it's any less precise.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted rhetoric systems history_of_science history_of_ideas color_me_skeptical</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:cd09f443c77a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:systems"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:history_of_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:history_of_ideas"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;aid=10293503&amp;fileId=S2053447716000099">
    <title>[Aristotle], &lt;i&gt;On Trolling&lt;/i&gt; - Cambridge Journals Online</title>
    <dc:date>2016-05-07T17:17:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;aid=10293503&amp;fileId=S2053447716000099</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["That trolling is a shameful thing, and that no one of sense would accept to be called ‘troll’, all are agreed; but what trolling is, and how many its species are, and whether there is an excellence of the troll, is unclear. And indeed trolling is said in many ways; for some call ‘troll’ anyone who is abusive on the internet, but this is only the disagreeable person, or in newspaper comments the angry old man. And the one who disagrees loudly on the blog on each occasion is a lover of controversy, or an attention-seeker. And none of these is the troll, or perhaps some are of a mixed type; for there is no art in what they do. (Whether it is possible to troll one’s own blog is unclear; for the one who poses divisive questions seems only to seek controversy, and to do so openly; and this is not trolling but rather a kind of clickbait.)
"Well then, the troll in the proper sense is one who speaks to a community and as being part of the community; only he is not part of it, but opposed. And the community has some good in common, and this the troll must know, and what things promote and destroy it: for he seeks to destroy. Hence no one would troll the remotest Mysian, or even know how, but rather a Republican trolls a Democratic blog and a Democrat Republicans. And he destroys the thread by disputing what is known to be true, or abusing what is recognised as admirable; or he creates fear about a small problem, as if it were large, or treats a necessary matter as small; or he speaks abuse while claiming to be a friend. And in general the troll says what is false but sounds like the truth—or rather he does not quite say it, but rather something very close to it which is true, or partly true, or best of all merely asks a simple question about the evidence for climate change. Hence the modes of trolling are many: the concern-troll, the one who ‘sees the other side’, the polite inquirer into the obvious. For the perfected troll has no need of rudeness or abuse, or even of fallacy (this belongs rather to sophistic or eristic, and requires making an argument): he only makes a suggestion or indication [seˆmainein].
"And this is how the troll generates strife. For what he indicates is known to be false or harmful or ignorant; but he does not say that thing, but rather something close. In this way he retains the possibility of denial, and the skilled troll is always surprised and hurt, or seems to be, when the others take his comments up. And so he sets the community apart from each other, and introduces strife where before there was scarcely disagreement. For each person who takes up what was said grasps only a part of it, and insists on that, and is annoyed when others affirm something different...."

--- The whole thing is absolutely pitch-perfect.]]></description>
<dc:subject>trolling networked_life rhetoric aristotle affectionate_parody barney.rachel moral_psychology philosophy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:b0d454827e6f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:trolling"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:aristotle"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:affectionate_parody"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:barney.rachel"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:moral_psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:philosophy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html">
    <title>On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit</title>
    <dc:date>2015-12-09T02:46:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity."

--- PDF (oddly not linked to from HTML version): http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB cognitive_science rhetoric natural_history_of_truthiness funny:geeky funny:malicious social_life_of_the_mind</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:aa528b737cfd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cognitive_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:natural_history_of_truthiness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:geeky"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:malicious"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo21174162">
    <title>Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story, Olson</title>
    <dc:date>2015-10-03T02:56:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo21174162</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Ask a scientist about Hollywood, and you’ll probably get eye rolls. But ask someone in Hollywood about science, and they’ll see dollar signs: moviemakers know that science can be the source of great stories, with all the drama and action that blockbusters require.
"That’s a huge mistake, says Randy Olson: Hollywood has a lot to teach scientists about how to tell a story—and, ultimately, how to do science better. With Houston, We Have a Narrative, he lays out a stunningly simple method for turning the dull into the dramatic. Drawing on his unique background, which saw him leave his job as a working scientist to launch a career as a filmmaker, Olson first diagnoses the problem: When scientists tell us about their work, they pile one moment and one detail atop another moment and another detail—a stultifying procession of “and, and, and.” What we need instead is an understanding of the basic elements of story, the narrative structures that our brains are all but hardwired to look for—which Olson boils down, brilliantly, to “And, But, Therefore,” or ABT. At a stroke, the ABT approach introduces momentum (“And”), conflict (“But”), and resolution (“Therefore”)—the fundamental building blocks of story. As Olson has shown by leading countless workshops worldwide, when scientists’ eyes are opened to ABT, the effect is staggering: suddenly, they’re not just talking about their work—they’re telling stories about it. And audiences are captivated."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted science science_in_society narrative rhetoric color_me_skeptical</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:48c491c8066b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_in_society"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:narrative"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://newleftreview.org/II/92/franco-moretti-dominique-pestre-bankspeak">
    <title>New Left Review - Franco Moretti, Dominique Pestre: Bankspeak</title>
    <dc:date>2015-04-28T18:04:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://newleftreview.org/II/92/franco-moretti-dominique-pestre-bankspeak</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>text_mining world_bank moretti.franco have_read rhetoric to:blog in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:82b0f62ebc9e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:text_mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:world_bank"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:moretti.franco"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:blog"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/53333-philosophy-between-the-lines-the-lost-history-of-esoteric-writing/">
    <title>Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing // Reviews // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame</title>
    <dc:date>2015-03-14T01:00:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/53333-philosophy-between-the-lines-the-lost-history-of-esoteric-writing/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>books:noted book_reviews history_of_ideas philosophy_of_science rhetoric persecution_and_the_art_of_writing</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:2afc4b56d3ef/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:book_reviews"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:history_of_ideas"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:philosophy_of_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:persecution_and_the_art_of_writing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11245-013-9174-y">
    <title>The Virtues of Ingenuity: Reasoning and Arguing without Bias - Springer</title>
    <dc:date>2014-10-13T12:53:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11245-013-9174-y</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This paper describes and defends the “virtues of ingenuity”: detachment, lucidity, thoroughness. Philosophers traditionally praise these virtues for their role in the practice of using reasoning to solve problems and gather information. Yet, reasoning has other, no less important uses. Conviction is one of them. A recent revival of rhetoric and argumentative approaches to reasoning (in psychology, philosophy and science studies) has highlighted the virtues of persuasiveness and cast a new light on some of its apparent vices—bad faith, deluded confidence, confirmation and myside biases. Those traits, it is often argued, will no longer look so detrimental once we grasp their proper function: arguing in order to persuade, rather than thinking in order to solve problems. Some of these biases may even have a positive impact on intellectual life. Seen in this light, the virtues of ingenuity may well seem redundant. Defending them, I argue that the vices of conviction are not innocuous. If generalized, they would destabilize argumentative practices. Argumentation is a common good that is threatened when every arguer pursues conviction at the expense of ingenuity. Bad faith, myside biases and delusions of all sorts are neither called for nor explained by argumentative practices. To avoid a collapse of argumentation, mere civil virtues (respect, humility or honesty) do not suffice: we need virtues that specifically attach to the practice of making conscious inferences.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read rhetoric epistemology social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition via:?</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:b88b99bff9f0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:epistemology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:?"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/45997-errors-of-reasoning-naturalizing-the-logic-of-inferenc/">
    <title>Errors of Reasoning: Naturalizing the Logic of Inference // Reviews // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame</title>
    <dc:date>2014-06-13T21:37:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/45997-errors-of-reasoning-naturalizing-the-logic-of-inferenc/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>book_reviews fallacies logic rhetoric epistemology judgment</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:1afc3c27c343/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:book_reviews"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:fallacies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:logic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:epistemology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:judgment"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://global.oup.com/academic/product/scientists-as-prophets-9780199857098?cc=us&amp;lang=en">
    <title>Scientists as Prophets - Lynda Walsh - Oxford University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2013-07-20T19:28:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://global.oup.com/academic/product/scientists-as-prophets-9780199857098?cc=us&amp;lang=en</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Why did an atheist like Carl Sagan talk so much about God? Why does NASA climatologist James Hansen plead with us in his recent book not to waste "Our Last Chance to Save Humanity"? Because science advisors are our new prophets, Lynda Walsh argues in Scientists as Prophets: A Rhetorical Genealogy. She does not claim, as some scholars have, that these public scientists push scientism as a replacement for religion. Rather, she puts forth the provocative argument that prophetic ethos is a flexible type of charismatic authority whose function is to manufacture certainty. Scientists aren't our only prophets, Walsh contends, but science advisors predictably perform prophetic ethos whenever they need to persuade their publics to take action or fund basic research. 
"Walsh first charts the genealogy of this hybrid scientific-prophetic ethos back to its roots in ancient oracles before exploring its flourishing in 17th century Europe. She then tracks its performances and mutations through several important late-modern events in America: Robert Oppenheimer's role in the opening of the atomic age; Rachel Carson's interventions in pesticide use; the mass-media polemics of science popularizers such as Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Stephen Jay Gould; and finally the UN's climate change panel and their role in Climategate. Along the way, Walsh highlights the special ethical and political defects embedded in the genealogy of the scientist-prophet, and she finishes by evaluating proposed remedies. She concludes that without a radical shift in our style of deliberative policy-making, there is little chance of remedying the dysfunctions in our current science-advising system. A cogent rhetorical analysis of over 1,000 archival documents from 10 historic cases, Scientists as Prophets engages scholars of scientific rhetoric, history, and literacy, but is also accessible to readers interested in the roots of current political debates about the environment, nuclear energy, and science education."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted science science_policy prophecy rhetoric rhetorical_self-fashioning</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:cf7e9245305a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:prophecy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetorical_self-fashioning"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/bad-faith-and-civility-health-care-edition/">
    <title>Bad Faith and Civility, Health Care Edition - NYTimes.com</title>
    <dc:date>2013-06-06T14:09:34+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/bad-faith-and-civility-health-care-edition/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["If someone says the sky is green, you prove that it’s actually blue, and the next day he comes back once again insisting that the sky is green, and this happens repeatedly, you eventually have to acknowledge that mannerly debate about the color of the sky just isn’t enough; you have to go meta, and talk about the fact that this guy and his friends just aren’t in the business of honest discussion.
"Inevitably, there are some people trying to turn the conversation meta in a different direction, and make it all about civility. But bad-faith arguments don’t deserve a civil response, and if the attempt to be civil gets in the way of exposing the bad faith, civility itself becomes part of the problem."]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric krugman.paul re:g_paper argument</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:9efa2a3aca66/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:krugman.paul"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:g_paper"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:argument"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://journal.sjdm.org/12/12810/jdm12810.pdf">
    <title>[untitled]</title>
    <dc:date>2013-01-04T02:23:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://journal.sjdm.org/12/12810/jdm12810.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Mathematics is a fundamental tool of research. Although potentially applicable in every discipline, the amount of training in mathematics that students typically receive varies greatly between different disciplines. In those disciplines where most researchers do not master mathematics, the use of mathematics may be held in too much awe. To demonstrate this I conducted an online experiment with 200 participants, all of which had experience of reading research reports and a postgraduate degree (in any subject). Participants were presented with the abstracts from two published papers (one in evolutionary anthropology and one in sociology). Based on these abstracts, participants were asked to judge the quality of the research. Either one or the other of the two abstracts was manipulated through the inclusion of an extra sentence taken from a completely unrelated paper and presenting an equation that made no sense in the context. The abstract that included the meaningless mathematics tended to be judged of higher quality. However, this "nonsense math effect" was not found among participants with degrees in mathematics, science, technology or medicine."

--- Query: would inserting a meaningless reference to, say, Plato, perhaps complete with some untranslated Greek, lead to higher evaluations among those with less training in the humanities?  Query: isn't the mechanism here a presumption of relevance on the part of the author/speaker, rather than mere gullibility?  (Especially since the subjects came from Mechanical Turk, and so presumably want to get this over with quickly and move on to the next task.)  Observation: per Table 1, the variation of the "rating advantage" over participants is _huge_, compared to the average change within each group.]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric experimental_psychology mathematics why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_intelligentsia</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f0d11025cb9f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experimental_psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_intelligentsia"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9871.html">
    <title>Beckwith, C.I.: Warriors of the Cloisters: The Central Asian Origins of Science in the Medieval World.</title>
    <dc:date>2012-09-27T13:07:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9871.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Warriors of the Cloisters tells how key cultural innovations from Central Asia revolutionized medieval Europe and gave rise to the culture of science in the West. Medieval scholars rarely performed scientific experiments, but instead contested issues in natural science, philosophy, and theology using the recursive argument method. This highly distinctive and unusual method of disputation was a core feature of medieval science, the predecessor of modern science. We know that the foundations of science were imported to Western Europe from the Islamic world, but until now the origins of such key elements of Islamic culture have been a mystery.
"In this provocative book, Christopher I. Beckwith traces how the recursive argument method was first developed by Buddhist scholars and was spread by them throughout ancient Central Asia. He shows how the method was adopted by Islamic Central Asian natural philosophers--most importantly by Avicenna, one of the most brilliant of all medieval thinkers--and transmitted to the West when Avicenna's works were translated into Latin in Spain in the twelfth century by the Jewish philosopher Ibn Da'ud and others. During the same period the institution of the college was also borrowed from the Islamic world. The college was where most of the disputations were held, and became the most important component of medieval Europe's newly formed universities. As Beckwith demonstrates, the Islamic college also originated in Buddhist Central Asia.
"Using in-depth analysis of ancient Buddhist, Classical Arabic, and Medieval Latin writings, Warriors of the Cloisters transforms our understanding of the origins of medieval scientific culture."

- My strong suspicion is that this is going to be making mountains of conjectures out of molehills of evidence, but how can I resist?  (And what was Danny Yee's line, about wondering whether Beckwith's graduate students were expected to follow him into the kurgan?)]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted history_of_ideas medieval_eurasian_history central_asia rhetoric buddhism islamic_civilization scholasticism beckwith.christopher books:owned</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:55a5d6384a03/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:history_of_ideas"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:medieval_eurasian_history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:central_asia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:buddhism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:islamic_civilization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:scholasticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:beckwith.christopher"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:owned"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.waggish.org/2012/the-sound-of-two-hands-clapping/">
    <title>The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: Georges Dreyfus on Buddhism - Waggish</title>
    <dc:date>2012-08-23T15:14:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.waggish.org/2012/the-sound-of-two-hands-clapping/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Too good to excerpt.]]></description>
<dc:subject>buddhism scholasticism rationality intellectuals rhetoric debate education moral_psychology book_reviews track_down_references</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:214cb0b863e2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:buddhism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:scholasticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rationality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:intellectuals"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:debate"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:education"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:moral_psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:book_reviews"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:track_down_references"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/25/occams-phaser/">
    <title>Occam’s Phaser? — Crooked Timber</title>
    <dc:date>2012-08-23T11:38:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/25/occams-phaser/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["It’s perfectly easy to construct a vanilla life-or-death case in which someone uses someone as a human shield without throwing anyone down a well or arming anyone with a phaser set on disintegrate, let alone both. And certainly there is no need to be simulataneously generous with the outlandish stage-dressings and utterly unforthcoming about what’s going on, onstage. Who are these people?
"So why go for the phaser option?
"It is often suggested that philosophers (or analytic philosophers, or Anglo-American philosophers, call us what you will) are just somehow autistic about this stuff. We write examples as if we’ve read about humans in books but never actually met one. But this is a mistake. Philosophers (or analytic philosophers, or Anglo-American philosophers) may be autistic – it is possible some at the mild end of that scale may find refuge in our tribe – but what we tend to be, in our choice of examples, is mildly whimsical. Whimsy is not the same as Asperger Syndrome. In academic philosophy example selection, there is an aesthetic of sustained, low-grade whimsy; odd-angle cases, with curiously crinkly edges, that scrupulously fail to rise to the level of being outright jokes, but that faintly tickle the funny bone. I think it’s probably originally an Ox-Bridge thing. Be that as it may, it may be a problem. Or maybe not.
"What is the typical effect of offering half a phaser-down-a-well case (i.e. you provide lurid incidentals while omitting the core of the human drama – who are these people?) when you could perfectly well have offered a full ordinary case. Some plausible human shield scenario, with plausible context and motives sketched in.
"I think it’s fair to say that the effect of narrating half a phaser-down-a-well case is the opposite of what it is often advertised to be. Such cases are supposed to function as ‘intuition pumps’. Trolley cars. People who wake up attached to famous violinists. You know the score. But really they are the opposite. (You could call them ‘intuition pumps’, but only if you meant by that the opposite of what people actually mean by that; if you meant that they that pump intuitions out, not in.) What these examples really are, if anything, is principle pumps. You nudge for a response while depriving people of the sorts of thick descriptive detail that would usually ground intuitive responses. If you are nudged to respond, and the only way to respond is to come up with an abstract principle for dealing with an abstractly indicated set of cases, then you will tend to respond by coming up with an abstract principle for dealing with an abstractly delimited set of cases. Which begs the question: ought I to respond to human shield cases with an abstract principle for dealing with an abstractly delimited set of human shield cases?"

- There is perhaps something to be done here by way of connecting this to Gigerenzer's work, on how many of the biases & failings of human cognition don't show up, or don't matter, in the environments where they are actually used ("ecological rationality"), though they can of course be isolated in the lab.  Maybe the reason every thorough system of ethics seems either pointless or monstrous is that we are only "ecologically moral", relying on fast-and-frugal sentiments which happen to work in life, and when we try to elaborate the principles abstractly, it's as though we made the representativeness heuristic the cornerstone of inquiry.]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy moral_philosophy moral_psychology rhetoric ethics holbo.john</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:4b642e8372fe/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:moral_philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:moral_psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ethics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:holbo.john"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/COLI_a_00124?mi=3fxgzl&amp;af=R&amp;searchText=underage%2Bdrinking">
    <title>Statistical Metaphor Processing</title>
    <dc:date>2012-08-23T02:52:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/COLI_a_00124?mi=3fxgzl&amp;af=R&amp;searchText=underage%2Bdrinking</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Metaphor is highly frequent in language, which makes its computational processing indispensable for real-world NLP applications addressing semantic tasks. Previous approaches to metaphor modelling rely on task-specific hand-coded knowledge and operate on a limited domain or a subset of phenomena. We present the first integrated open-domain statistical model of metaphor processing in unrestricted text. Our method first identifies metaphorical expressions in running text and then paraphrases them with their literal paraphrases. Such a text-to-text model of metaphor interpretation is compatible with other NLP applications that can benefit from metaphor resolution. Our approach is minimally supervised, it relies on the state-of-the-art parsing and lexical acquisition technologies (distributional clustering and selectional preference induction) and operates with a high accuracy."

- Compare to Turney's approach to word-analogy problems via SVD.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB metaphor natural_language_processing text_mining rhetoric via:??? machine_learning</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:30cafb96da1c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:metaphor"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:natural_language_processing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:text_mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:???"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:machine_learning"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://thehairpin.com/2012/08/how-your-sweet-valley-high-gets-made/">
    <title>How Your Sweet Valley High Gets Made | The Hairpin</title>
    <dc:date>2012-08-10T18:13:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://thehairpin.com/2012/08/how-your-sweet-valley-high-gets-made/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I'm too old to have read these, but certainly I devoured enough functionally-similar stuff as a boy, so I find this sort of view into the process fascinating.  I also wonder at what it does to the makers, morally: is it corrupting? can you write this sort of thing with (for lack of better phrases) honorable intentions, or does it necessarily force you into a posture of contempt for your audience?  (I don't think contempt for the readers of such things is justified, though I think I felt differently at 16.)
And: how old is this kind of writing-for-hire?]]></description>
<dc:subject>how_the_sausage_gets_made writing popular_culture rhetoric literary_history via:bookslut</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:0977ab087e60/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:how_the_sausage_gets_made"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:writing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:popular_culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:literary_history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:bookslut"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://kitwhitfield.blogspot.com/2012/01/first-sentences-haunting-of-hill-house.html">
    <title>Kit Whitfield's Blog: First sentences: &lt;i&gt;The Haunting of Hill House&lt;/i&gt; by Shirley Jackson</title>
    <dc:date>2012-01-02T13:02:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://kitwhitfield.blogspot.com/2012/01/first-sentences-haunting-of-hill-house.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>literary_criticism rhetoric jackson.shirley whitfield.kit blogged</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7e7feef3a185/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:literary_criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:jackson.shirley"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:whitfield.kit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:blogged"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520267275">
    <title>Making Chastity Sexy : The Rhetoric of Evangelical Abstinence Campaigns : Christine J. Gardner - University of California Press</title>
    <dc:date>2011-07-28T12:52:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520267275</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Memo to self: ask J.R. what she thinks about this.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted practices_relating_to_the_transmission_of_genetic_information evangelicals rhetoric sociology to:NB</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:8b1ade1c6653/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:practices_relating_to_the_transmission_of_genetic_information"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evangelicals"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/19/the-correct-way-to-argue-with-milton-friedman/">
    <title>The correct way to argue with Milton Friedman — Crooked Timber</title>
    <dc:date>2011-07-25T16:54:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/19/the-correct-way-to-argue-with-milton-friedman/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>economics rhetoric bargaining_games law_and_economics dsquared</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:227334c00c77/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:bargaining_games"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:law_and_economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:dsquared"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://andrewgelman.com/2011/07/one_of_the_easi/">
    <title>“One of the easiest ways to differentiate an economist from almost anyone else in society” « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science</title>
    <dc:date>2011-07-20T12:18:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://andrewgelman.com/2011/07/one_of_the_easi/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This is one of the few convincing deconstructions I have ever seen.  (Andrew would not of course call it "deconstruction".)
]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric economics rhetorical_self-fashioning gelman.andrew to:blog</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:47d736321a19/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetorical_self-fashioning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:gelman.andrew"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:blog"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.princeton.edu/~reinhard/pdfs/INFANT_CARE-ASSIGNMENT_ON_HEALTH_ECONOMICS_FALL_2006.pdf">
    <title>The Concepts of &quot;Efficiency&quot; and &quot;Economic Welfare&quot; in the Context of Health Care</title>
    <dc:date>2010-09-17T14:29:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.princeton.edu/~reinhard/pdfs/INFANT_CARE-ASSIGNMENT_ON_HEALTH_ECONOMICS_FALL_2006.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Now that is what I call a _compelling_ homework assignment.  (So much so, in fact, that I am not altogether comfortable with the idea of giving it.  But at the same time so much of the rest of what they'd be getting in their economics classes is _also_ priming/framing/forcing, in a rather more underhanded way, that this might only be fair.)
]]></description>
<dc:subject>economics health_care economic_policy rhetoric via:jbdelong moral_philosophy debunking evisceration reinhard.uwe</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c07173f8c49d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:health_care"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economic_policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:jbdelong"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:moral_philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:debunking"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evisceration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:reinhard.uwe"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://engl.iastate.edu/directory/gdwilson">
    <title>Gregory D. Wilson: ISU English Department</title>
    <dc:date>2010-07-08T14:50:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://engl.iastate.edu/directory/gdwilson</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Worked at Los Alamos and, more relevantly, wrote a 2001 thesis on _Articulation Theory and Disciplinary Change:  Unpacking the Bayesian-Frequentist Paradigm Conflict in Statistical Science_!
]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric science_studies track_down_references foundations_of_statistics via:vukutu</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:35a597008eaf/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_studies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:track_down_references"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:foundations_of_statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:vukutu"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/SperberWilsonMetaphor.pdf">
    <title>A Deflationary Account of Metaphor (Sperber and Wilson)</title>
    <dc:date>2010-03-06T15:56:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/SperberWilsonMetaphor.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["linguistic metaphors are not a natural kind, and ―metaphor is not a theoretically important notion in the study of verbal communication. Metaphorical interpretations are arrived at in exactly the same way as literal, loose and hyperbolic interpretations: there is no mechanism specific to metaphors, and no interesting generalisation that applies only to them. In this paper, we defend this approach in detail by showing how the same inferential procedure applies to utterances at both ends of the literal-loose-metaphorical continuum, and how both literal and metaphorical utterances may create poetic effects."]]></description>
<dc:subject>metaphor rhetoric pragmatics sperber.dan wilson.deirdre relevance hyperbole</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:605ffe74703c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:metaphor"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:pragmatics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sperber.dan"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:wilson.deirdre"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:relevance"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hyperbole"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/MercierSperberWhydohumansreason.pdf">
    <title>Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory (Mercier and Sperber)</title>
    <dc:date>2010-02-21T16:23:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/MercierSperberWhydohumansreason.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Well, yes, isn't this obvious*?  We begin by reasoning with others; only later do we come to reason with ourselves.  (*: where by "obvious" I mean "intensely debatable, yet compelling to people like me.")
]]></description>
<dc:subject>rationality cognitive_science rhetoric have_read sperber.dan mercier.hugo argument</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:678397d9fcb5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rationality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cognitive_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sperber.dan"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mercier.hugo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:argument"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=559:conversation-hackers-trolls-argumentation&amp;catid=32:oliviers-blog&amp;Itemid=34">
    <title>Conversation Hackers</title>
    <dc:date>2009-12-14T03:59:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=559:conversation-hackers-trolls-argumentation&amp;catid=32:oliviers-blog&amp;Itemid=34</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Everyone who ever dealt with a Troll knows of the strong, nagging urge to argue back at him ; and they know, of course, that this urge must be repressed at all cost, for it is what Trolls feed on. Thus trolling is powered by the same basic motivation that it serves to satisfy : that crazy desire to get the last word in a conversation. Trolls exist because there is enough Trollhood in everyone of us for them to feed on." Plus: Socrates and Hui Shi as trolls.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>trolls social_life_of_the_mind social_media computer_networks_as_provinces_of_the_commonwealth_of_letters anthropology rhetoric rhetorical_self-fashioning socrates philosophy to:blog trolling morin.olivier claudel.sophie argument hui.shi</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:1747539d9530/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:trolls"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:computer_networks_as_provinces_of_the_commonwealth_of_letters"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:anthropology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetorical_self-fashioning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:socrates"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:blog"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:trolling"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:morin.olivier"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:claudel.sophie"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:argument"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hui.shi"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1901">
    <title>Language Log » Faults “intollerable and euer vndecent”</title>
    <dc:date>2009-11-17T15:00:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1901</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Are these esthetic complaints, or moral ones?  Or is this an example of how the distinction blurs and breaks down?
]]></description>
<dc:subject>funny:academic english language_history rhetoric</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:dc7526ac20c0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:academic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:english"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:language_history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://sanseverything.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/reckless-falsehoods.pdf">
    <title>Reckless Falsehoods</title>
    <dc:date>2009-10-08T17:53:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://sanseverything.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/reckless-falsehoods.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>vast_right-wing_conspiracy rhetoric_of_reaction even_the_liberal_new_republic rhetoric natural_history_of_truthiness deceiving_us_has_become_an_industrial_process evisceration via:jbdelong mccaughney.elizabeth glass.stephen sullivan.andrew lamey.a.m.</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:b45226a1e136/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:vast_right-wing_conspiracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric_of_reaction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:even_the_liberal_new_republic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:natural_history_of_truthiness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:deceiving_us_has_become_an_industrial_process"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evisceration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:jbdelong"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mccaughney.elizabeth"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:glass.stephen"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sullivan.andrew"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:lamey.a.m."/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://michaelperelman.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/x-eff.pdf">
    <title>Michael Perelman: Harberger Triangles, Okun Gaps, and X-Efficiency: The Rhetorical Application of Data</title>
    <dc:date>2009-08-08T04:26:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://michaelperelman.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/x-eff.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>economics rhetoric political_economy via:jbdelong bad_science monopoly allocative_efficiency innovation productivity perelman.michael tobin.james stigler.stephen</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:65a900d1f537/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:jbdelong"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:bad_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:monopoly"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:allocative_efficiency"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:productivity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:perelman.michael"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:tobin.james"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:stigler.stephen"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/daed.2009.138.3.44">
    <title>Hacking - &quot;Humans, Aliens, and Autism&quot;</title>
    <dc:date>2009-07-04T21:50:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/daed.2009.138.3.44</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>hacking.ian rhetoric autism to_read</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:966f2366f87f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hacking.ian"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:autism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/05/sotomayor-vs-cardozo.html">
    <title>Sotomayor vs. Cardozo</title>
    <dc:date>2009-05-30T22:23:10+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/05/sotomayor-vs-cardozo.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This has been another edition of patient explanations of things which are obvious to everyone who has actually bothered to think.  Tune in next week...
]]></description>
<dc:subject>us_politics diversity delong.brad law rhetoric sotomayor.sonia</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c274f059ca95/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:delong.brad"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:law"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sotomayor.sonia"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/29/the-rhetoric-of-bearing-risk/">
    <title>The Rhetoric of Bearing Risk — Crooked Timber</title>
    <dc:date>2009-05-30T00:16:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/29/the-rhetoric-of-bearing-risk/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Shorter Henry Farrell: risk means _risk_, you morons.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>economics risk rhetoric evisceration farrell.henry</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:cc12937b8b2b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:risk"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evisceration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/03/liquidity.html">
    <title>Angry Bear: Liquidity</title>
    <dc:date>2009-03-09T13:13:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/03/liquidity.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["I think the logic of the financial sector has long been "We're smart and there are plenty of dumb investors out there. The rules should be designed to make it easy for us to separate them from their money." That is not a pleasant attitude, but, to our great misfortune, they were wrong. They managed to lose huge amounts of money making important institutions at least illiquid and probably insolvent."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>financial_markets waldmann.robert liquidity rectification_of_names economics rhetoric financial_crisis_of_2007--</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:3a132b0bd511/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:financial_markets"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:waldmann.robert"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:liquidity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rectification_of_names"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:financial_crisis_of_2007--"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/katz/pubs/FromHow2Why_pt2.pdf">
    <title>From How to Why: On Luminous Description and Causal Inference in Ethnography, part 2 (Katz)</title>
    <dc:date>2009-02-18T19:02:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/katz/pubs/FromHow2Why_pt2.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>via:neuroanthropology ethnography anthropology causal_inference rhetoric interpretation to_read</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:87528812eacb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:neuroanthropology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ethnography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:anthropology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:causal_inference"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:interpretation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/katz/pubs/FromHow2Why_pt1.pdf">
    <title>From How to Why: On Luminous Description and Causal Inference in Ethnography, Part 1 (Katz)</title>
    <dc:date>2009-02-18T19:01:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/katz/pubs/FromHow2Why_pt1.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>via:neuroanthropology ethnography anthropology causal_inference rhetoric interpretation to_read</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c4409932cde7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:neuroanthropology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ethnography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:anthropology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:causal_inference"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:interpretation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1058">
    <title>Language Log » Presidential parataxis?</title>
    <dc:date>2009-01-25T19:31:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1058</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Mark continues his righteous jihad against Stanley Fish.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric stylistics pragmatics parataxis obama.barack fish.stanley liberman.mark evisceration</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:327bee6404ed/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:stylistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:pragmatics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:parataxis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:obama.barack"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:fish.stanley"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:liberman.mark"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evisceration"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.robmacdougall.org/index.php/2008/11/american-for-a-day/">
    <title>American For A Day</title>
    <dc:date>2008-11-07T00:29:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.robmacdougall.org/index.php/2008/11/american-for-a-day/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Wonderful essay by a Canadian historian on the deep strand of Americanism which recasts radical reform as simply trying to do what was implicit at the beginning: " And so on and so on down through history, with every kind of American reformer looking backward to move forward, couching their goals as nothing more radical than America’s alleged founding ideals.... Canadians are not against life or liberty or happiness, in moderation. But we don’t hear the music, by and large. We see windmills where Americans see dragons and damsels in distress. And because we do, we don’t have that engine driving us onward, those whirring pistons of the gap between the real and ideal."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>something_about_america american_history rhetoric uses_of_the_past obama.barack via:idlethink douglass.frederick stanton.elizabeth_cady king.martin_luther macdougall.robert</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:780596f78299/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:something_about_america"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:american_history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:uses_of_the_past"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:obama.barack"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:idlethink"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:douglass.frederick"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:stanton.elizabeth_cady"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:king.martin_luther"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:macdougall.robert"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://thepoorman.net/2008/10/13/observations-on-recent-trends-in-political-discourse/">
    <title>Observations on recent trends in our political discourse « The Poor Man Institute</title>
    <dc:date>2008-10-14T03:01:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://thepoorman.net/2008/10/13/observations-on-recent-trends-in-political-discourse/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This is a thing of beauty.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>us_politics rhetoric vicious_parody the_poor_man</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:eccefbaed968/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:vicious_parody"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:the_poor_man"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8323.html">
    <title>Baum, L.: Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior.</title>
    <dc:date>2008-08-13T16:35:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8323.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Check if library has it.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted law judges rhetoric social_life_of_the_mind</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:51879f33eb05/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:law"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:judges"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262026147">
    <title>Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Video Games - The MIT Press</title>
    <dc:date>2008-08-06T13:32:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262026147</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["argues that videogames, thanks to their basic representational mode of procedurality (rule-based representations and interactions), open a new domain for persuasion; they realize a new form of rhetoric"
]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted rhetoric video_games</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:d80386320a4b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:video_games"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~upne/0-8195-6867-8.html">
    <title>UPNE - Rhetorics of Fantasy: Farah Mendlesohn</title>
    <dc:date>2008-05-26T23:46:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~upne/0-8195-6867-8.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>fantasy rhetoric books:noted mendelsohn.farah</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:bf3f44dd0f9a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:fantasy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mendelsohn.farah"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/why-do-republic.html">
    <title>Armchair Generalist: Why Do Republicans Hate America?</title>
    <dc:date>2008-05-21T06:00:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/why-do-republic.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>utter_stupidity the_continuing_crises counter-terrorism islamism rhetoric</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:96a3f9e9de31/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:utter_stupidity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:the_continuing_crises"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:counter-terrorism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:islamism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/the_end_of_argument/">
    <title>The Valve - A Literary Organ | The End of Argument</title>
    <dc:date>2008-04-28T12:27:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/the_end_of_argument/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>rhetoric literary_criticism argument arguifying holbo.john</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ac73ebe6f48f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:literary_criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:argument"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:arguifying"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:holbo.john"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://istherenosininit.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/is-magic-ever-magic-to-the-magician/">
    <title>Is magic ever magic to the magician? « Is there no sin in it? [A White Bear]</title>
    <dc:date>2008-04-07T00:26:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://istherenosininit.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/is-magic-ever-magic-to-the-magician/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[As the poet said, "all art is artifice".
]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric rhetorical_self-fashioning charisma presentation_of_self magic pedagogy talent practice obama.barack a_white_bear</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:97569f1dbf9e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetorical_self-fashioning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:charisma"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:presentation_of_self"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:magic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:pedagogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:talent"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:obama.barack"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:a_white_bear"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/04/the_framing_fracas.php">
    <title>Uncertain Principles: The Framing Fracas</title>
    <dc:date>2008-04-06T14:23:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/04/the_framing_fracas.php</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>rhetoric social_life_of_the_mind science_as_a_social_process computer_networks_as_provinces_of_the_commonwealth_of_letters orzel.chad mooney.chris</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:75db7655746b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_as_a_social_process"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:computer_networks_as_provinces_of_the_commonwealth_of_letters"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:orzel.chad"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mooney.chris"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/faculty/Driskill/DeconstructingfreetradeAug27a2007.pdf">
    <title>Deconstructing the argument for free trade</title>
    <dc:date>2008-03-16T23:14:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/faculty/Driskill/DeconstructingfreetradeAug27a2007.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Very carefully (and rightly) avoiding a substantive position; merely pointing out that the economists' arguments in public fora and textbooks are, on their own terms, bad.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>free_trade economics rhetoric moral_responsibility injustice_inherent_in_the_welfare_function via:slaniel driskill.robert in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:48148522ff2f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:free_trade"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:moral_responsibility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:injustice_inherent_in_the_welfare_function"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:slaniel"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:driskill.robert"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/call-the-metaphor-police/">
    <title>Call the metaphor police! - Paul Krugman</title>
    <dc:date>2008-03-15T21:30:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/call-the-metaphor-police/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Uh oh. we’ve got a downturn that can feed itself and, at the same time, dig trenches."  Cool!
]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric mortgage_crisis funny:malicious krugman.paul metaphor</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:24c6972abca3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mortgage_crisis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:malicious"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:krugman.paul"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:metaphor"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/seminars/kaufer/index.html">
    <title>Learning to See Rhetorical Design through Computational Thinking (Abstract)</title>
    <dc:date>2008-03-15T02:20:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/seminars/kaufer/index.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Talk by the head of our English dept.  ("Only at CMU...")  Sounds great but much would depend on the implementation; missed the talk as I had to teach.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>rhetoric computation design kaufer.david carnegie_mellon</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7c0ecb656e4a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:computation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:design"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kaufer.david"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:carnegie_mellon"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2008/03/story-of-fractal-wrongness.html">
    <title>The Abstract Factory: The story of &quot;fractal wrongness&quot;</title>
    <dc:date>2008-03-14T19:01:10+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2008/03/story-of-fractal-wrongness.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>assaults_on_reason fractal_wrongness rhetoric</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:df8243dd464e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:assaults_on_reason"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:fractal_wrongness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>