Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Macheath · 05-22-2003, 04:05 AM

I remember watching an O'Reilly where he had some PhD author on. Basically he laid a really "damning" sociological statistic on the author.

Funniest thing was the author was familiar with the statistic and proceeded to address the stat and why it didn't refute his argument. When he finished, Bill basically says "well that's all well and good but what about THIS statistic."

He then laid down a second somewhat more irrelevant statistic which he again presented as "damning" of his opponent's case.

I think he has them all on teleprompter from studio researchers - he can keep going until he comes up with a stat or case study you're not familiar with and then BANG you're instantly made to look ill-informed. You may be a Nobel Prize winner, but at that moment you may as well be Homer Simpson.

It'd be like an argument in Tilted Politics where one person has access to Lexis-Nexis and Google and the other person is allowed to consult their pet goldfish.

I could imagine him arguing with some savant or human computer, reeling through stats until he finds one they're not familiar with. It'd end up something like "Well sir why did you neglect to mention the average rainfall of Guatemala circa 1967 in your book on teen pregnancy in New York - it does make it look as if your glossing over (sorry *spinning*) what's really going on here, doesn't it."

05-22-2003, 04:05 AM	#18 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	I remember watching an O'Reilly where he had some PhD author on. Basically he laid a really "damning" sociological statistic on the author. Funniest thing was the author was familiar with the statistic and proceeded to address the stat and why it didn't refute his argument. When he finished, Bill basically says "well that's all well and good but what about THIS statistic." He then laid down a second somewhat more irrelevant statistic which he again presented as "damning" of his opponent's case. I think he has them all on teleprompter from studio researchers - he can keep going until he comes up with a stat or case study you're not familiar with and then BANG you're instantly made to look ill-informed. You may be a Nobel Prize winner, but at that moment you may as well be Homer Simpson. It'd be like an argument in Tilted Politics where one person has access to Lexis-Nexis and Google and the other person is allowed to consult their pet goldfish. I could imagine him arguing with some savant or human computer, reeling through stats until he finds one they're not familiar with. It'd end up something like "Well sir why did you neglect to mention the average rainfall of Guatemala circa 1967 in your book on teen pregnancy in New York - it does make it look as if your glossing over (sorry spinning) what's really going on here, doesn't it." Last edited by Macheath; 05-22-2003 at 04:08 AM..