Item — HN Reader

The author's theory is completely unsubstantiated. They make a surprising conjecture and instead of proving, asks the audience to disprove it:

"I defy anyone who has worked in an office over the last 25 years to write and say that my theory does not fit the observable facts"

Seems a bit lazy.

3 comments

I actually consider that a fair challenge - it's just not proof.

"I suspect X, does anyone have data to invalidate that?" is a great question. You just have to avoid argument from ignorance, and follow up with "If not, can we get data to actually support this theory?"

Well, have you?

Not the OP, but... that's not how it works. (a) It is the responsibility of the person making an assertion to back it up. If you disagree, god says you need to give me all your money. (b) The proposed test (compare with 25 years ago) is worse than useless, for the same reason people, as they age, tend to think the Kids These Days are lazier/ruder/dumber/more helpless/whatever than Back In My Day. It is designed to solicit agreement with the writer, not actually demonstrate the validity of anything.

    > The author's theory is completely
    > unsubstantiated ... Seems a bit
    > lazy

This was going to be the case from the point it became clear that The Spectator was the source. It's basically Breitbart, only written by the very articulate and urbane. Surprised he didn't manage to get a jab at THE MUSLIMS in there somewhere.