R: I’d like you to give evidence or sources when you talk about it.
Tarky: What do you mean? Commentators on TV shows say whatever they want.
R: Those are experts of some kind, aren’t they? I’d like you to ensure their expertise.
Tarky: That’s a natural science argument, so I don’t think it’s something that is generally required or accepted.
R: Does that mean you think so?
Tarky: The argument is refined with evidence. The argument is refined by criticism. I think this is a special method of argumentation in the natural sciences, which we developed in our graduate school days. It’s not the best way to appeal to the masses.
R: I think TV commentators should take responsibility for what they say.
R: I think TV commentators should be responsible for what they say. Tarky: That’s because they’re following the conventions of the TV industry, so we can’t force them to use natural science arguments.
R: Doesn’t that mean you’re avoiding your responsibility?
Tarky: It’s just that the way of speaking for entertainment and influence to the public is different from the way of speaking logically and with solid evidence. I think it’s better to separate the two, because a scientifically serious attitude doesn’t necessarily move the public.
R: I think it’s just more sterile talk.
tarky: There are people who can’t even take out the trash properly, and I think the level R is looking for is quite high. I think the level of R is quite high. The method of presenting evidence to advance an argument itself has become a major method since Newton. There are many different theories in theology, and there are many different methodologies in the world of learning. I think it’s a bit self-righteous to make one of them the standard.