= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
byrnema comments on Conversation Halters - 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 (94)
I disagree with, Appeal to inescapable assumptions. My specific reason is that I think it would insulate physical materialism from the main type of argument you can make against it. I see empiricism as a huge, impenetrable fortress built on assumptions that are reasonable but not necessary. Interestingly, while appealing to the possession of different assumptions, I probably would appeal to humility, personal choice, etc.
An assumption is still an assumption. Some assumptions are more natural than others in the context of a scientific worldview, however, we haven't established that the scientific worldview is applicable always and everywhere. If anything changes -- for example, if reality is far more strange than we anticipate -- then as a culture and a society we need the flexibility to reconsider assumptions.
Also, did you mean, 'appeal to escapable assumptions'?
I think one of us may be misunderstanding Eliezer Yudkowsky's point - I thought he was referring to the kind of argument which goes:
What does objecting to this kind of stupidity have to do with empiricism?
So obviously that argument is stupid. But I don't think it is a conversation halter. I think it is the case that you have to assume something in order to draw conclusions at all (and I think there are probably a couple more of these in addition to induction). So once we've said "we're allowed to assume this" obviously our debating opponents are going to want to assume things of their own. The right response to that is not "AHHHHH! CONVERSATION STOPPER!" Rather, we need a language for distinguishing good assumptions from bad assumptions. So this move shouldn't stop the conversation. Rather, it leads to a conversation about what makes some assumptions justified.
ETA: And
Just isn't going to be the kind of language that lets us evaluate assumptions. The whole point of assenting to any assumptions is just so that you can say something true or not true.
The point isn't that these are uncounterable, but that they are not commonly countered. Because of this people have become conditioned to use them to end conversations.
It's the same argument. While I wouldn't want to defend this one (!) I don't think it's an intrinsically flawed category of argument.
Consider all the 'dualists' (I presume they exist) who believe that if God exists, he exists outside of / independently of empirical evidence. If they are forced to take on the assumptions of empiricism, they have no position and readily concede this. Declaring that you cannot question or revisit initial assumptions would simply close the dialogue with them.
You can always avoid confronting any argument whatsoever by declaring your opponent to be operating under the assumptions of some "ism" that you refuse to accept. But unless you actually proceed to argue against those assumptions, you're the one who's closing the dialogue. Which is the whole point.
And that's almost always how it is with believers in religion. As I mentioned in my very first comment on LW (which somebody downvoted), they are invariably the first ones to say "this conversation will go nowhere". And they're right, because they've made sure of that.
The fact that your opponent's assumptions are different from yours isn't a point against your opponent unless you can show that yours are better or at least just as good. But since the point of claiming different assumptions is usually to cut off the discussion in the first place, that doesn't generally happen.
Both you and Matt_Simpson seem to be making a similar argument in response to my comment - that it's OK to visit and question initial assumptions.
So maybe I'm missing the point of this post. Is questioning and revisiting assumptions something you're opponent is allowed to do in an argument, or not allowed to do?
My impression is that the conversation ends because at least one side isn't willing to argue about initial assumptions. (Indeed, if there was an argument for it, it wouldn't be an assumption.) People will just say things like, 'it is self-evident that ....' or, 'oh, if you don't even believe that then there's nothing to talk about!'.
I haven't had many conversations with dualists since commenting on LW (where are they, anyway?) but my guess is that the main premise they would disagree with is that you should not believe something you don't have the right kind of evidence* for, even if it is consistent and seems like a nice explanation to you. There is an argument for this premise, so the initial assumption they would debate with must be in there somewhere. If my guess is correct, but I'm not sure.
* where "the right kind of evidence" means that it is positive evidence in the context of possible falsifying evidence
Is something the conversation-halter refuses to do, in an argument.
Does that clear it up, or not?
Edit to clarify: in a reasonable debate, the disputants will on occasion have to admit to inconsistency in their present worldview and revise their thinking, and such a revision will often lead to a changed mind on the lesser matter about which the debate resolved. This is the optimal result of an argument about assumptions. This conversation-halter is the declaration that the mere fact of differing assumptions removes the burden to defend the attacked position.
No, according to the post, the conversation halter wants to revisit and question assumptions. The criticism is that the person wants to pick a different assumption like it's a free choice they can make.
Well, it is. The assumption is either self-evident to them, or it isn't. Sometimes a discussion about a priori assumptions will reveal that an assumption is self-evident to them in a way that they hadn't thought about, but sometimes, people really do have different ideas about what is self-evident.
I get the sense that we're talking about different situations entirely. I've seen people claim that they have the right to assume whatever they want, and therefore they are exempt from evidential argument. That sounds to me like exactly what Eliezer Yudkowsky was describing. People who are sincerely taking the argument meta are completely outside the scope of this post.
So I agree that this move of bringing up assumptions isn't necessarily a conversation halter. But if it just comes down to people having different notions of what is self-evident... well then it is a conversation halter. That is why I don't think a discussion about our assumptions should be about their self-evidence. Here are some other features of assumptions that can be used to evaluate them: utility, parsimony, generality, predictive capacity, fruitfulness.
Assuming the existence of a God has no utility, negative parsimony, zero predictive capacity and while fruitful in some circumstances, extremely destructive in others. Assuming induction as valid on the other hand...
ETA: Also, a lot of time all the assumptions an empiricist or physicalist needs are already implicit in the discourse. You can bootstrap from there.
Or take propositional logic. Assume A=A. Or don't. But if you don't your logic is useless.
OK, it might likely be a conversation halter, but maybe it should be. If your view is being attacked based on initial assumptions you don't agree with, you can just state that. In this case, you might have good reason to cut off the flow of debate.
But even if you don't want to halt the conversation, if visiting initial assumptions is the next step, what else can you do?
I'm all about visiting initial assumptions. But declaring your assumptions "self-evident" isn't a justifying move. All this means is "I don't have any reasons for believing it, but I do." Now if there were no ways around that it wouldn't be a silly thing to say. But look! There are ways to talk about propositions even when we have to stop talking about whether those propositions correspond to reality! So now we don't have to stop talking. More than that, it doesn't make sense to stop talking because "My assumptions are useful, fruitful, and parsimonious and yours are not." is close to a knock out response to "I have no reason to believe this, but I do."
.
Where does that preclude criticizing assumptions? (I presume this is your quarrel) In fact, the next line endorses the criticism of assumptions: