= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ 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)
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.