= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
WrongBot comments on Against the standard narrative of human sexual evolution - 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 (153)
If I am actually bad enough at thinking and writing that I am a net loss to this community, as you seem to be implying, I do not see why this is so. If I don't know what you are requesting that I fix, how should I know when to come back?
Your repeated refusal to justify your claims strikes me as a form of logical rudeness. When I look at my total karma and the average karma of posts and comments I've made, I see that there is generally some level of appreciation for my contributions to this website. Why do you disagree with the consensus strongly enough to ask me to leave?
No, I don't think there's room to consider a refusal to take part in a debate a form of logical rudeness. The purpose of logical rudeness is to hide the absence of a counter-argument: openly refusing to offer one is a different thing.
I would think that if one were not interested in taking part in a debate, one wouldn't start one.
Is it really unobjectionable to make a strong attack on a position and refuse to explain why?
WrongBot:
It can be justified in certain circumstances. Sometimes I see a terribly wrong argument, but providing a satisfactory counter-argument would require much more time and space than I have available. In such situations, I will sometimes write a reply that the argument is wrong, but proving this would require more effort that I can realistically afford, so that the author should take it on authority and good faith that he needs to reconsider his position (and perhaps do some more learning before he's competent to tackle the problem constructively).
(This is not meant to imply anything more specific about this concrete dispute -- I am merely giving a general answer to the question.)
The strength of the attack should be evaluated according to evidence contained in the attack. If it's a statement from authority, then not very much evidence, depending on who states what on which topic. Still better than no input, but often not by much.
I don't have time for a justification, take it for what it is. That may be rude, but it is definitely not analogous to what is discussed in the post you linked to. I suppose though, in terms of justifications, that fact is pretty close to what I'm thinking of. You seem to implicitly make analogies which are simply wrong, to do it routinely, and to do it in a manner which would be time-consuming to correct. I'd rather Karma ask for me, but I think people are far too generous with Karma in general, not just with you.
The post on logical rudeness identifies the following subtypes of the phenomenon:
Eliezer also identifies the opposite of logical rudeness, to which he aspires:
Saying (as you have) that "you're stupid and bad at thinking and I won't say why but it's so bad that I want you to go away" is a form of logical rudeness I would generally identify as
Like the subtypes Eliezer describes, it's a form of motivated arguing that makes losing the argument impossible. That doesn't sound like any sort of neck-sticking-out I'm familiar with. You have not invited me to capture your banner; you have hidden it.
Apparently your post hits a nerve with some people here.