= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid 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)
There has been a lot of work on argumentation, argumentation schemes, and burden-of-proof moves; I'm thinking in particular of Douglas Walton - http://www.dougwalton.ca/ - but the field of argumentation is big and old. This is heavily-trodden territory.
EY has a somewhat novel slant on things, and so may be able contribute to the conversation, but by not citing (or not looking for previous work) he's being (accidentally) somewhat deceptive here.
It's tempting to portray your thoughts as original and without precedent, but even if they feel original and without precedent, they probably aren't.
See EY's critique of Gould - http://lesswrong.com/lw/kv/beware_of_stephen_j_gould/
As a matter of course I expect most things I read here to be based on works from other sources or reinventions thereof.
As an aside I would expect Eliezer to have far less to cover in the field of argumentation than many other potential explorers. He tries to cut himself off from a lot of the paths of argumentation that are paved in filth which means he doesn't follow them along enough to really understand the sophisticated nuances. One would expect make his writing more useful for 'how to not' than 'how to'.