tut 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.

Comments (203)

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

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.