Pfft 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)

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

Comment author: MoreOn 23 February 2011 08:39:12PM 6 points [-]

Most of the comments in this discussion focused on topics that are emotionally significant for your "opponent." But here's something that happened to me twice.

I was trying to explain to two intelligent people (separately) that mathematical induction should start with the second step, not the first. In my particular case, a homework assignment had us do induction on the rows of a lower triangular matrix as it was being multiplied by various vectors; the first row only had multiplication, the second row both multiplication and addition. I figured it was safer to start with a more representative row.

When a classmate disagreed with me, I found this example on Wikipedia. His counter-arguement was that this wasn't the case of induction failing at n=2. He argued that the hypothesis was worded incorrectly, akin to the proof that a cat has nine tails. I voiced my agreement with him, that “one horse of one color” is only semantically similar to “two horses of one color,” but are in fact as different as “No cat (1)” and “no cat (2).” I tried to get him to come to this conclusion on his own. Midway through, he caught me and said that I was misinterpreting what he was saying.

The second person is not a mathematician, but he understands the principles of mathematical induction (as I'd made sure before telling him about horses). And this led to one of the most frustrating arguments I'd ever had in my life. Here's the our approximate abridged dialogue (sans the colorful language):

Me: One horse is of one color. Suppose every n horses are of one color. Add the n+1st horse, and take n out of those horses. They’re all of one color by assumption. Remove 1 horse and take the one that’s been left out. You again have n horses, so they must be of one color. Therefore, all horses are of one color.

Him: This proof can't be right because its result is wrong.

Me: But then, suppose we do the same proof, but starting with on n=2 horses. This proof would be correct.

Him: No, it won’t be, because the result is still wrong. Horses have different colors.

Me: Fine, then. Suppose this is happening in a different world. For all you know, all horses there can be of one color.

Him: There’re no horses in a different world. This is pointless. (by this time, he was starting to get angry).

Me: Okay! It’s on someone’s ranch! In this world! If you go look at this person’s horses, every two you can possibly pick are of the same color. Therefore, all of his horses are of the same color.

Him: I don’t know anyone whose horses are of the same color. So they’re not all of one color, and your proof is wrong.

Me: It’s a hypothetical person. Do you agree, for this hypothetical person—

Him: No, I don’t agree because this is a hypothetical person, etc, etc. What kind of stupid problems do you do in math, anyway?

Me: (having difficulties inserting words).

Him: Since the result is wrong, the proof is wrong. Period. Stop wasting my time with this pointless stuff. This is stupid and pointless, etc, etc. Whoever teaches you this stuff should be fired.

Me: (still having difficulties inserting words) … Wikipe—…

Him: And Wikipedia is wrong all the time, and it’s created by regular idiots who have too much time on their hands and don’t actually know jack, etc, etc. Besides, one horse can have more than one color. Therefore, all math is stupid. QED.

THE END.

To the best of my knowledge, neither of these two people were emotionally involved with mathematical induction. Both of them were positively disposed at the beginning of the argument. Both of them are intelligent and curious. What on Earth went wrong here?

^One of the reasons why I shouldn’t start arguments about theism, if I can’t even convince people of this mathematical technicality.

Comment author: Pfft 29 March 2014 01:35:09PM *  2 points [-]

In The Society of Mind, Marvin Minsky writes about "Intellectual Trauma":

One of Freud's conceptions was that the growth of many individuals is shaped by unsuspected fears that lurk in our unconscious minds. These powerful anxieties include the dread of punishment or injury or helplessness or, worst of all, the loss of the esteem of those to whom we are attached. Whether this is true or not, most psychologists who hold this view apply it only the the social realm, assuming that the world of intellect is too straightforward and impersonal to be involved with such feelings. But intellectual development can depend equally upon attachments to other persons and can be similarly involved with buried fear and dreads. [--] By itself, the failure to achieve a goal can cause anxiety. For example, surely every child must once have thought along this line:

Hmmmm. Ten is nearly eleven. And eleven is nearly twelve. So ten is nearly twelve. And so on. If I keep on reasoning this way, then ten must be nearly a hundred!

To an adult, this is just a stupid joke. But earlier in life, such an incident could have produced a crisis of self-confidence and helplessness. To put it in more grown-up terms, the child might think, "I can't see anything wrong with my reasoning--and yet it led to bad results. I merely used the obvious fact that if A is near B, and B is near C, then A must be near C. I see no way that could be wrong---so there must be something wrong with my mind." Whether or not we can recollect it, we must once have felt some distress at being made to sketch the nonexistent boundaries between the oceans and the seas; What was it like to first consider "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" What came before the start of time; what lies beyond the edge of space? And what of sentences like "This statement is false," which can throw the mind into a spin? I don't know anyone who recalls such incidents and frightening. But then, as Freud might say, this very fact could be a hint that the area is subject to censorship

If people bear the scars of scary thoughts, why don't these lead, as our emotion-traumas are supposed to do, to phobias, compulsions, and the like? I suspect they do---but disguised in forms we don't perceive as pathological. [---]

This seems to fit the anecdote very well--your interlocutor could not find a fault in the reasoning, noticed it led to an absurdity, and decided that this intellectual area is dangerous, scary, and should be evacuated as soon as possible.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit