NancyLebovitz comments on Logical Rudeness - Less Wrong

65 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 January 2010 06:48AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (203)
Tags: logical_rudeness argument

Comments (203)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 28 April 2010 01:28:54AM 1 point [-]

When one of us makes a point, the other must offer a counterargument or explicitly concede the point. We're not allowed to move to another argument without doing that first. Concede or refute, don't ignore. And if one of us later reuses an argument we previously conceded, the other person gets to dismiss it without repeating their refutation.

This might work as an explicit standard for argument here.

Comment author: tut 28 April 2010 07:02:09AM 2 points [-]

This might work as an explicit standard for argument here.

No. This is still a blog, not a vocation. If I fail to respond to your blog comment, that means that I didn't happen to read that comment. It does not tell you anything about whether or not you were right. So it is not a valid argument, much less a trump card in all future discussions.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 28 April 2010 10:12:02AM 2 points [-]

This isn't a rule about being required to reply. It's a rule about not offering new arguments until old arguments have been accepted or refuted.

I only meant the rule to apply to interactions-- A offers argument A1, B (who's discussing the matter with A) must address A! before moving on to B1. C (who hasn't said anything so far) is under no obligation.

If B didn't see A1 or doesn't remember it, then B should be politely reminded of it. If B then persists in offering B1, then the rule gets invoked.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit