= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kingreaper comments on Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism - 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 (323)
When you're trying to argue that something is the case (ie. that the analogies are irrelevant) the difference between what you are arguing being OBVIOUS and it merely being POSSIBLE is extremely vast.
You seem to confuse the level of certainty with difficulty of discerning it.
You made a claim that they were obviously irrelevant.
The respondant expressed uncerainty as to their irrelevance "They may be irrelevant." as opposed to the certainty in "The analogies are obvious." and "They are not obviously irrelevant."
That is a distinction between something being claimed as obvious and the same thing being seen as doubtful.
If you do not wish to explain a point there are many better options* than inaccurately calling it obvious. For example, linking to a previous explanation.
*in rationality terms. In argumentation terms, these techniques are often inferior to the technique of the emperor's tailors