= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
zero_call comments on Woo! - 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 (57)
Assuming a descriptor is accurate and unbiased, the object of description remains unchanged. The accurate labeling of arguments does not constitute a critique, and the purpose of the website remains the same. (While an accurate labeling may be interpreted as a critique, that interpretation lies on top of its first intention.) It could make sense to argue for an inescapable bias of descriptors (see EY and BA below), but that is a different matter.
The problem is that the object of description is changed by merely being quoted on TakeOnIt. It is taken out of its context (possibly including supporting arguments), and presented as if it were the response to a question. (Fortunately, it does link to the source of the quote, which may provide context, but this relies on users actually following the link.) There is potential for bias in selecting what argument to quote as evidence that an expert holds a particular opinion, especially since a strongly stated conclusion is better for purposes of demonstrating that the expert has a given opinion, than the detailed arguments and evidence that support that conclusion. An accurate label on the quote could inaccurately reflect on the expert and the validity of their opinion.
TakeOnIt is not a good resource for determining what arguments and evidence support an expert's opinion. Documenting woo types is an inaccurate signal that it should be used as such a resource. To avoid tricking people by quoting misleading rhetoric, it may be best to explicitly only quote statements of conclusion and exclude the arguments.
On quotes:
Quotes are by their nature vulnerable to being taken out of context. Any author who quotes an expert, or attributes a viewpoint to an expert, makes some effort to do so accurately and fairly. If they overly misrepresent people, they risk damaging their reputation. The same holds true for TakeOnIt. I should note that TakeOnIt, unlike other quote websites, always provides a source to help guard against that.
On deconstructing arguments:
An issue can be broken down into several sub-issues, where each issue has its own dedicated question on TakeOnIt. That way, you can see not only a summary of the expert's opinion on a particular issue, but also their opinions on more specific issues that lead them to their main conclusion. For example, here's Roy Spencer, a climate skeptic's opinions:
http://www.takeonit.com/expert/238.aspx
You can see not only his opinion on whether AGW is true, but also his specific opinions that lead him to that (in this case, negative feedback loops).
On collating an expert's arguments:
I was toying with the idea of displaying links to the quotes to sub-issues directly below the quotes for high-level issues. When I think about it, I'm not sure why I haven't coded up that feature...
That seems like a reasonable way to analyze an expert's opinion.
It would be good to have the list of sub issues, saying whether the expert agrees or disagrees (or mostly agrees/disagrees, etc) and link to their quote on that issue.
I've implemented it. Check it out:
http://www.takeonit.com/question/5.aspx
Nice
OK, I'll add this feature.
If this interpretation of TakeOnIt is correct, I can't see the website being very useful. Pure conclusions count little or nothing for me -- it's all about the argument.
It is valuable for evaluating experts based on their ability to reach accurate conclusions. See The Correct Contrarian Cluster.
And you can, of course, follow the citation to link to the full argument.
TakeOnIt has a separate construct for specific arguments supporting a position. Look at the arguments tab on the Global Warming debate or Cryonics debate:
http://www.takeonit.com/question/5.aspx
http://www.takeonit.com/question/318.aspx
The arguments tab works by connecting questions together via logical implications, such that the answer to one question implies the answer to another.
In comparison, pitches are just a way to mark up quotes such that well known persuasion patterns can be identified.