= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gray comments on Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate - 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 (186)
This is a good point, but I think there's a ready solution to that. Agreement and disagreement, by themselves, are rather superficial. Arguments, on the other hand, rationalists have more respect for. When you agree with someone, it seems that you don't have the burden to formulate an argument because, implicitly, you're referring to the first person's argument. But when you disagree with someone, you do have the burden of formulating a counterargument. So I think this is why rationalists tend to have more respect for disagreement than agreement, because disagreement requires an argument, whereas agreement doesn't need to.
But on reflection, this arrangement is fallacious. Why shouldn't agreement also require an argument? I think it may seem to add to the strength of an argument if multiple people agree that it is sound, but I don't think it does in reality. If multiple people develop the same argument independently, then the argument might be somewhat stronger; but clearly this isn't the kind of agreement we're talking about here. If I make an argument, you read my argument, and then you agree that my argument is sound, you haven't developed the same argument independently. Worse, I've just biased you towards my argument.
The better alternative is, when you agree with an argument, there should be the burden of devising a different argument that argues for the same conclusion. Of course, citing evidence also counts as an "argument". In this manner, a community of rationalists can increase the strength of a conclusion through induction; the more arguments there are for a conclusion, the stronger that conclusion is, and the better it can be relied upon.
In that case you're "writing the last line first", I suspect it might not reduce bias. Personally, I often try to come up with arguments against positions I hold or am considering, which sometimes work and sometimes do not. Of course, this isn't foolproof either, but might be less problematic.
Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what "writing the last line first" means. I'm guessing you referring to the syllogism, and you take my proposal to mean arguing backwards from the conclusion to produce another argument for the same conclusion. Is this correct?
I'm referring to this notion of knowing what you want to conclude, and then fitting the argument to that specification. My intuition, at least, is that it would be more useful to focus on weaknesses of your newly adopted position - and if it's right, you're bound to end up with new arguments in favor of it anyway.
I agree, though, that agreement should not be taken as license to avoid engaging with a position.
I suppose I should note, given the origin of these comments, that I recommend these things only in a context of collaboration - and if we're talking about a concrete suggestion for action or the like rather than an airy matter of logic, the rules are somewhat different.