Jack comments on You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof - Less Wrong

57 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 February 2010 07:58AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (221)
Tags: logical_rudeness agw creationism particular_proof

Comments (221)

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

Comment author: brazil84 16 February 2010 12:10:55AM 0 points [-]

I assumed the person banned in this thread had comments deleted because you responded to all his points and then posted two more times before you banned him.

If you look more carefully, you will see I asked him a couple reasonable questions; he did not respond; and that was that.

But my problem isn't just that you haven't conceded that your opponent might make plausible points.

I still don't understand what the problem is. Do you think I have ignored or misrepresented the best evidence in favor of the warmist position?

Presumably, though, you still want smart people to challenge your beliefs.

Sure, if they do so in a reasonable fashion.

Comment author: Jack 16 February 2010 12:18:23AM 3 points [-]

If you look more carefully, you will see I asked him a couple reasonable questions; he did not respond; and that was that.

You asked him a couple reasonable questions. He did not respond. A few days later, you banned him.

I still don't understand what the problem is. Do you think I have ignored or misrepresented the best evidence in favor of the warmist position?

I have no idea if you have done done that. In the same way, If I had just read the "Amanda Knox is guilty" website I would have no idea if they had responded to the best arguments of the "Amanda Knox is innocent" crowd. But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so. Maybe someone else can point out exactly what gives me that impression, I'm afraid I'm at a loss. Sorry.

Comment author: wedrifid 21 February 2010 12:37:34PM 3 points [-]

But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so. Maybe someone else can point out exactly what gives me that impression, I'm afraid I'm at a loss. Sorry.

His discussion strategy consists almost entirely of logical rudeness. I had assumed he was an attorney based on my prior experiences with the style long before he presented his qualification as evidence. My prejudices inform me that while they can often be quite competent at seeking out truth, speaking to lawyers is a terrible strategy for finding truth yourself.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit