By Chris Ciappa
Founder & Chief Coherence Architect
Samirac Partners

Recently I received a reply to a post that read:

“This is neither logical or rational as a description. I wouldn’t recommend creating your own lingo until you demonstrate mastery of a subject as a general rule.

I will suggest that should be reviewed and revised for consistency and capabilities for what you propose.

As long as you clearly wish to make an exceptional claim, you need to be exceptional in execution to support it. Perhaps you should redesign your concept rather than try to redesign the facts to fit the current version ?

Instead of engaging the claim, it shifts the discussion to:

• tone

• terminology

• perceived “mastery”

None of which address whether the argument itself is correct.

There’s:

• no counterexample

• no breakdown of the logic

• no identification of where the claim fails

• no actual counterargument

Just an assertion that it must be wrong.

That’s not critique.

That’s avoidance.

You may be wondering what the claim was. It was merely this post.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cciappa_quantum-will-break-encryption-no-it-activity-7448194872202670080-Zgow?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAALsiIBhExBD7xFsVZ1AS_hPtqUrewAXWo

If a claim is truly “neither logical nor rational,” that should be easy to demonstrate:

• Where does the reasoning break?

• Which assumption fails?

• What part is not falsifiable?

If you can’t answer those, you’re not engaging the argument.

You’re rejecting it without understanding it. Some would call that ignorance.

There’s also a second pattern here

“Don’t create your own terminology until you demonstrate mastery.”

This sounds reasonable—until you realize that all new frameworks require new language.

If the language is unclear, challenge it.

If the logic is wrong, break it.

But dismissing it because it’s unfamiliar isn’t rigor.

It’s resistance.

Finally:

“As long as you wish to make an exceptional claim, you need to be exceptional in execution. Perhaps you should redesign your concept rather than try to redesign the facts to fit”

I Agree.

That’s why the claim is structured to be falsifiable. In fact there is an article written long ago that states that exact fact. Ignorance is not bliss but it should be.

I think if it’s wrong, show where.

If it holds, then the discussion should move forward.

Dismissing a claim without understanding it isn’t critique, it invalidates nothing, it’s not even a counterargument

Real critique engages the argument.

Everything else is posture.

I believe we have shows this is a fine example of how NOT to respond.