[oneepic]

As a layperson who doesn't understand psychology but is interested in science and peace, I felt that Ferguson's article (this HN post) was much less directed at a person (as opposed to the person's work or theories put forward) and more professional, versus the linked blog post -- so I tend to believe the former.

Even a simple sentence like, "Ferguson did both of these things and his findings thus do not “undermine” our causal claims; he failed to accurately test our causal claims," comes across as scathing compared to the paper.

[lamontcg]

> so I tend to believe the former.

That's an extremely poor way to determine truth.

[gotoeleven]

Why is this "scathing"? He's literally just positing simple facts, which may or may not be true.

This tendency of people nowadays to focus on tone and other irrelevant characteristics of an argument (as it is made) is dumb.

[mistermann]

Humans commonly engage in deceptive rhetoric, and tone is one of the methods they use. Often, the individual may not even be doing it with substantial intention.

Wordplay is another, and there is plenty of it in this HN thread.

[oneepic]

I argue it's relatively scathing, because Haidt's wording is much more dramatic, negative, and more aimed at a person than Ferguson's wording is. By "facts" I assume you mean claims, no?

I'm not sure how tone would be irrelevant; similar to what a sibling commenter said, tone conveys quite a bit of information. It seems unwise or "dumb" to ignore that, because we're still humans talking to each other, even if it's bits over a wire, and we're working together in good faith to learn and solve problems, aren't we?