Jack comments on Conversation Halters - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 February 2010 03:00PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (94)
Tags: logical_rudeness argument egalitarianism modesty anti-epistemology arbitrariness outside_view

Comments (94)

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

Comment author: RobinZ 20 February 2010 05:13:36PM 4 points [-]

I think one of us may be misunderstanding Eliezer Yudkowsky's point - I thought he was referring to the kind of argument which goes:

Look, the problem of induction states that you have to assume something in order to draw conclusions at all, so that means that I have the freedom to assume that the God of the Bible created the entire universe for the benefit of humanity, whom He created in His image. You can't tell me your assumptions are better, because any assumptions are necessarily arbitrary.

What does objecting to this kind of stupidity have to do with empiricism?

Comment author: Jack 20 February 2010 08:58:39PM *  3 points [-]

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

In the realm of physical reality, reality is one way or another and you don't get to make it that way by choosing an opinion, and so some "assumptions" are right and others wrong.

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.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 21 February 2010 05:36:42AM 3 points [-]

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit