Challenging expert claims requires refusing the expert’s framing language entirely

Evidence

But would he have deferred to Coon? No way. He would have had to say something along the lines of “I’m not going to argue with you in that language, using those tools; there are a wider set of issues at stake here, and I strongly suspect that, in ways you don’t even understand, the whole UNIVERSE of the analysis you are using—the presuppositions, the questions, the framings and definitions—is itself the product of a history and a culture that totally condition and even, I suspect, determine your findings.” — The Friends of Attention, Attensity!, 148

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The core strategic move of the whole book crystallized: oppose an expert discourse not with counter-evidence but with a wholesale critique of its presuppositional universe — this is the manifesto’s theory of how non-specialists should engage credentialed knowledge.
• DEFINE: Illustrates the book’s stance that framing and presuppositions, not just findings, determine what science legitimates.