= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Let Them Debate College Students - 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 (139)
RAOW! Did I signal that I'm on the wrong "team" there? FWIW, Robin Hanson brought up the same thing here.
Yes, the probabilities are different, but critics of ID consistently, incessantly argue that ID and related concepts are not just wrong, but incoherent and totally outside the realm of science. Don't you think it's significant that Dawkins -- without probably realizing it -- just admitted that there's a 1% chance of this incoherent, unscientific idea being true?
Nope, not a good enough reason for refusing to address the case as presented without reference to the persons presenting it.
Well of course Dawkin's doesn't deny it when talking to Ben Stein ;-) But if you're asking if there's evidence Dawkins changes his claims when talking to creationists, well, sure, for one thing, he changes his claims to "..." when talking to creationists by virtue of not debating them.
But as for the fundamental issue: all across YouTube and the blogosphere, anti-creationists (sorry, don't know a better term to use, suggest a better one rather than criticize) were absolutely livid that Stein presented a Dawkins interview that he got under false pretenses and that this somehow makes the claims of the interviewees less significant. Now tell me, for purposes of ascertaining what Dawkins believes, why does it matter whether Dawkins made a statement in an interview with a creationist vs. in an interview "about" religion?
So that's why I ask about the epistemological status of "I believe this, but not in a way that creationists are ever supposed to hear".
The point is, when people like Dawkins so horribly fail at the use of probabilities, it makes it easier for people like me to be a devil's advocate for creationists.
Yes, you've definitely been saying things that could be twisted for the purpose of gaining status at your expense.
I warned that I've played devils advocate on this issue. I've argued a position held by Robin Hanson. And I'm on Less-muthaf---in'-Wrong-dot-com.
Doesn't that get me a little leeway on the tribalism?
Afraid not. It is my role (as Machiavelli's advocate) to be as unreasonable in my interpretation of your position as I think I can get away with. 'Devil's Advocacy' is seldom fully appreciated, even with warnings and it is (or would be) my role to encourage that. You can only appeal to Devil's Advocacy so many times without appearing insecure, a defeat from which I would benefit far more than in merely proving you to be out-of-group.
No, it doesn't matter if your arguments are good ones. It doesn't matter if your contribution adds much needed rigour and balance to the discussion. It doesn't matter if your efforts probing and challenging allows the in group to more clearly understand and communicate their position. Being a team player isn't about doing what's good for the team, it's about playing the team.
That Robin Hanson has argued for your position helps, but once again I get to benefit from any doubt. On topics that are difficult or unintuitive Robin or Eliezer can expect effort to be expended understanding them before their controversial claims are harvested for status. But the topics are still difficult to understand or controversial so take some time to become a norm. Until that time you are still a ripe target if you express them yourself without the high status advocacy evidenced somewhere in the context.
But be careful. Make too much effort to convey that you are supporting the position of the high status guy and I can insinuate that you are a sycophant. Yes, it's absurd to claim that you are both out-of-group and a sycophantic in-grouper, but an even moderately competent debater will get away with such nonsense. A token effort at subtlety and a couple of posts buffer in between are more than enough. After all, nobody is going to stand up for the out-of-group guy. That usually applies even if 'stand up for' is replaced with 'even become conscious of the absurdity of the accusations levelled at'.
I'm afraid playing Devil's Advocate just gives wannabe-angels a chance to try to prove that they're the next Archangel Gabriel.
I'm not convinced our barriers for entry are all that high.
The tribalist I complained about wasn't a low-karma newcomer ;-) (snark removed)
I would be interested to know what, as a matter of general principle, you think is sufficient evidence to justify calling someone a "tribalist".