= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Debate tools: an experience report - 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 (72)
One problem with these sorts of tools is that they encourage people to split their arguments into lots of little pieces, which means arguments for C often end up being A->B, B'->C where B and B' look alike but on closer inspection turn out to be different.
I think that is in fact the point -- so we can see where the argument falls down.
Why is this a problem?
The reason this (splitting the argument into many small pieces) is a problem is that sometimes, checking an argument by going over it with a microscope isn't sufficient.
If the checker is mostly reliable but fallible, a long-enough inferential chain can defeat any specific amount of reliability, making the checker useless at best and maybe even deceptive.
However, even though it is a flaw, it's not a fatal flaw. We can strongly prefer smaller arguments, and maybe there are other techniques too (representing is-a-refinement-of explicitly?).
Sure. But it doesn't seem preferable to just not go over arguments piece by piece.
Promoting "closer inspection" of argument pieces sounds like a win to me, so I'm not sure how this is a problem. Can you elaborate, or perhaps illustrate with an example you've come across?