Boyi comments on How to Not Lose an Argument - Less Wrong

109 Post author: Yvain 19 March 2009 01:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (409)

Tags: argument

Comments (409)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: thomblake 14 December 2011 10:19:16PM 0 points [-]

You are assuming that "the majority of people are unable to break symbols without suffering the psychological trumma (sic) of wrongness" and thus "rewriting God is more effective than trying to destroy God".

Eliezer's argument assumed the uncontroversial premise "Many people think God is the only basis for morality" and encouraged finding a way around that first. Your argument seems to be assuming the premises (1) "The majority of people are unable to part with beliefs that they consider part of their identity" as well as (2) "It is harder and/or worse to get people to part with these beliefs than to adopt a bowdlerized version of them". Yvain may have supported (1), but I didn't see him arguing in favor of (2).

I do not see why I have to go further to prove a point that you all readily accepted when it was Yvain who stated it.

I don't think anyone is seriously questioning the "leave a line of retreat" part of your argument.

You don't have to do anything. But if you want people to believe you, you're going to have to show your work. Ask yourself the fundamental question of rationality.

Comment author: Boyi comment score below threshold [+] (23 children)

Comment author: Nornagest 15 December 2011 12:58:25AM * 3 points [-]

How is this an uncontroversial claim! What proof have you made of this claim.

Well, it took me about five minutes on Wikipedia to find its pages on theonomy and divine command theory, and most of that was because I got sidetracked into moral theology. I don't know what your threshold for "many people" is, but that ought to establish that it's not an obscure opinion within theology or philosophy-of-ethics circles, nor a low-status one within at least the former.

Comment author: dlthomas 15 December 2011 12:56:03AM 3 points [-]

I consider "[m]any people think God is the only basis for morality" to be uncontroversial because I have heard several people express this view, see no reason to believe that they are misrepresenting their thoughts, and see no reason to expect that they are ridiculous outliers. If we substituted "most" for "many" it would be more controversial (and I'm not sure whether or not it would be accurate). If we substituted "all" for many, it would be false.

Comment author: thomblake 15 December 2011 03:48:22AM * 0 points [-]

How is this an uncontroversial claim!

No one has argued against it.

What proof have you made of this claim.

None.

It is uncontroversial to you because everyone involved in this conversation (excluding me) has accepted this premise.

Yes. By the way, you both asked a question above and asserted its answer. You could have saved yourself some time.

Ask yourself the fundamental question of rationality.

Was this an attempt at a tu quoque? You were advancing a proposition, and I was clarifying the request for you to show your work.

All they see is you/people like you calling a part of them "vulgar."

I don't believe I've done this, and I'm not sure what you mean by "people like you". Was that supposed to be racist / sexist?

My argument is not that people are unable to part with beliefs, but that 1.) it is harder and 2.) they don't want to.

That sounds roughly like my #2 above, which is what I noted Yvain and Eliezer did not advance in the relevant articles.

Comment author: Boyi comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: thomblake 15 December 2011 02:45:43PM 3 points [-]

Don't use words if you do not know what they mean.

Indeed.

Better yet, don't criticize someone's usage of a word unless you know what it means.

At this point, I no longer give significant credence to the proposition that you are making a good-faith effort at truth-seeking, and you are being very rude. I have no further interest in responding to you.

Comment author: Boyi comment score below threshold [+] (8 children)

Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 03:52:50PM * 4 points [-]

I once thought the manifest rightness of post-modern thought would convince those naive realists of the truth, if only they were presented with it clearly. It doesn't work that way, for several reasons:

Many "post-modern" ideas get co-opted into mainstream thought. Once, Legal Realism was a revolutionary critique of legal formalism. Now it's what every cynical lawyer thinks while driving to work. In this community, it is possible to talk about "norms of the community" both in reference to this community and other communities. At least in part, that's an effect of the co-option of post-modern ideas like "imagined communities."
Post-modernism is often intentionally provocative (i.e. broadening the concept of force). Therefore, you shouldn't be surprised when your provocation actually provokes. Further, you are challenging core beliefs of a community, and should expect push-back. Cf. the controversy in Texas about including discussion of the Spot Resolution in textbooks.
As Kuhn and Feyerabend said, you can't be a good philosopher of science if you aren't a good historian of science. You haven't demonstrated that you have a good grasp of what science believes about itself, as shown in part by your loose language when asserting claims.

Additionally, you are the one challenging the status quo beliefs, so the burden of proof is placed on you. In some abstract sense, that might not be "fair." Given your use of post-modern analysis, why are you surprised that people respond badly to challenges to the imagined community? This community is engaging with you fairly well, all things considered.

ETA: In case it isn't clear, I consider myself a post-modernist, at least compared to what seems to be the standard position here at LW.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 04:05:57PM 3 points [-]

Really great post! You are completely right on all accounts. Except I really am not a post-modernist, I just agree with some of their ideas, especially conceptions of power as you have pointed out.

I am particularly impressed with Bullet point # 2, because not only does it show an understanding of the basis of my ideas, but it also accurately points out irrationality in my actions given the theories I assert.

I would then ask you if understand this aspect of communities including your own, would you call this rational? It is no excuse, but I think coming here I was under the impression that equality in burden of proof, acccomdation of norms and standards, would be the norm, because I view these things as rational.

Does it seem rational that one side does not hold the burden of proof? To me it is normal for debate because each side is focused solely on winning. But I would call pure debate a part of rhetoric ("the dark arts"). I thought here people would be more concerned with Truth than winning.

Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 04:20:30PM 0 points [-]

Does it really seem to you that the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support" is not rational?

Obviously, there's substantial power in deciding what claims are extraordinary.

Comment author: Boyi comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 December 2011 02:26:20PM 2 points [-]

Bowdlerization is normally understood to be the idea of removing offensive content, but this offensiveness doesn't need to have anything to do with "vulgarity".

Comment author: thomblake 15 December 2011 03:20:15PM 1 point [-]

X is offensive. Vulgar is offensive. Therefore X is vulgar. Logic equals very yes?

Comment author: Boyi comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 December 2011 03:49:30PM 0 points [-]

There exist things that are offensive against standards of propriety and taste (the things you call "vulgar"). Then again there exist things which offend against standards of e.g. morality.

You don't seem to understand that there can exist offensiveness which isn't about good manners, but about moral content.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 03:53:19PM -2 points [-]

??? Um no read sentence # 2.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 December 2011 03:58:42PM * 0 points [-]

Please respond to these following two question, if you want me to understand the point of disagreement:

Do you understand/agree that I'm saying "offensive content" is a superset of "vulgar content"?
Therefore do you understand/agree that when I say something contains offensive content, I may be saying that it contains vulgar content, but I may also be saying it contains non-vulgar content that's offensive to particular moral standards?

Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 03:58:37PM 0 points [-]

First, bowdlerizing has always implied removing content, not adding offensive content. Second, the word has evolved over time to mean any removal of content that changes the "moral/emotional" impact of the work, not simply removal of vulgarity.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 04:20:30PM 0 points [-]

I do not say it means adding content. It means to remove offensive content. Offensive content that is morally base is considered vulgar.

continue this thread »

Boyi comments on How to Not Lose an Argument - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (409)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (409)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login