Mark Gagnon

I guess creating some type of distinction that maybe they don't both hold similar weight, I guess.

Like this is something I wonder with like trying to find like a middle ground.

Like you might think of like, you know, some type of tyrannical dictator or demagogue.

And he might have a reasoning for why he wants to commit some type of atrocious act.

And I think in good faith, you probably should explain why that is the case.

Yeah.

But you need to be able to explain it in a way to say, well, he's obviously wrong, but it's showing his reasoning for why he's doing this.

Right.

Yes.

So for like the, the shape of the earth argument, because it seems fairly non-controversial, but maybe a good illustration of the point that we agree that the earth is not flat, but is it worth mentioning that there are groups that do believe this and should they be framed as fringe?

I see.

That makes sense.

So it's not fringe ontologically.

It's not just like this is fringe.

It is fringe in the perspective of the mainstream or by whatever institution of cosmologists.

I see.

I see.

And that's how it's fallen short, that there is sort of framing by the authors to make specific issues, you know, less palatable or outside the Overton window.

And you feel like that is subjective by the, you know, individual editors themselves.

I see.