= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Open Thread: March 2010 - 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 (658)
It's not anti-logical, it's rude logic. The point of Suber's paper is that at no point does the logically rude debater reason incorrectly from their premises, and yet we consider what they have done to be a violation of a code of etiquette.
When I was considering a better name for the problem, I couldn't find a word for the process of seeking truth, which is what's actually being derailed by logical rudeness.
Unless I've missed something, the problem with logical rudeness isn't that there's no logical flaw in it.
The fact that I've got 4 karma points suggests (but doesn't prove) that I'm not the only person who has a problem with the term "logical rudeness". I should have been clearer that "anti-logical rudeness" was just an attempt at an improvement, rather than a strong proposal for that particular change.
I think you're complaining about the problem of people not updating on their evidence by using anti-epistemological techniques such as logical rudeness.
I still don't see the need for changing the name, but I'll defer to the opinion of the crowd if need be.