= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JamesCole comments on The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (113)
Indeed, and that is why it's wrong to say that attempts to rationally justify statements about reality are "almost certainly going to produce an ad hoc Just-So Story".
I'm not sure what the second sentence there is taking "initial intuitions" to mean, but I don't think there's any substantial disagreement between our statements.
That's not what I said.
I have no interest in helping to generate a Gish Explosion. Please confine yourself to addressing arguments I actually make, rather than straw men.
I'm not trying to be a jerk. Let me try to explain things, as I don't think I communicated my point very clearly.
Just to start off, the quoted text is something you said.
But perhaps you are saying that the sentence I've embedded it in does not reflect what any thing you said? If so, it's not mean to - it's describing the point I was making, and to which your response included that quoted text.
Essentially, my last comment was trying to point out what I'd originally said had been misinterpreted in the Just-So Story bit, even though I didn't do a great job of making this clear. Of course you may argue that you didn't misinterpret me, but I certainly wasn't trying to put words into anyones mouth.
No, the quoted text includes a fragment of what I said. Your statement about what I said is wrong as a whole.
The point you were making has nothing to do with the discussion that's going on. That's called a non-sequitur, and it's a traditional rhetorical fallacy.