= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
utilitymonster comments on The "show, don't tell" nature of argument - 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 (24)
<effort: 5 minutes> - tl;dr: It takes too long
All communication takes time. We should minimize the time necessary to communicate our arguments. As a speaker (or writer for that matter), I cannot know which parts of my argument will be obvious to the listener and which ones won't.
"It can be argued"/"There is evidence for" should be used whenever the speaker assumes further detailed arguments are unnecessary but would be able to supply further details if requested without undue delays. By stochastically testing whether the speaker actually can supply correct arguments/evidence if requested, we can quickly build trust - saving us a lot of time during later communication with said speaker.
In this way, these phrases could not be used for bluffing disagreeing listeners, because they would simple request more details.
At least in philosophy (my discipline), people often say 'it can be argued that p' when arguments for p have been produced by others, and these arguments are thought to have considerable force, but it would take the discussion too far astray to rehearse those arguments. It is sometimes worthwhile to say this, rather than producing an argument for p.
This isn't just for people who are already familiar with those arguments for p. Knowing these arguments exist is often importance evidence related to p, and can guide one's future thinking.