Kaj_Sotala comments on The Neglected Virtue of Scholarship - Less Wrong

177 Post author: lukeprog 05 January 2011 07:22AM

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

Comments (153)

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

Comment author: lukeprog 05 January 2011 08:50:52PM *  5 points [-]

Kaj_Sotala,

If Hitchens meant what people are charitably attributing to him, why didn't he make those points in the following rebuttal periods or during the Q&A? Craig gave the exact rebuttal that I just gave, so if Hitchens had intended to make a point about complexity or entropy rather than the point about infinite regress he explicitly made, he had plenty of opportunity to do so.

You are welcome to say that there are interesting objections to theism related to the question "Who designed the designer?" What confuses me is when people say I gave a bad example of non-scholarship because I represented Hitchens for what he actually said, rather than for what he did not say, not even when he had an opportunity to respond to Craig's rebuttal.

The argument people here are attributing to Hitchens is not the argument he gave. Hitchens gave an objection concerning an infinite regress of explanations. The argument being attributed to Hitchens is a different argument that was given in one form by Richard Dawkins as The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit. Dawkins' argument is unfortunately vague, though it has been reformulated with more precision (for example, Kolmogorov complexity) over here.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 05 January 2011 10:05:53PM *  6 points [-]

I didn't suggest that he meant that, I suggested that what you said didn't do enough to exclude it from the class of reasonable interpretations of what he might have meant.

Suppose someone says to me, like you did, "there's this guy Hitchens, he said the following: "Who designed the Designer? Don’t you run the risk… of asking 'Well, where does that come from? And where does that come from?' and running into an infinite regress?'". The very first thing that comes to mind, and which came to my mind even before I'd read the next sentence, is "oh, I've used that argument myself, when some religious person was telling me 'but the Big Bang had to come from somewhere', that must be what Hitchens meant". That's the default interpretation that will come to the mind of anyone who's willing to give Hitchens the slightest benefit of doubt.

Yes, if people click on the links you provided they will see that the interpretation is wrong, but most people aren't going to do that. And people shouldn't need to click on a link to see that the most plausible-seeming interpretation of what they've read is, in fact, incorrect. If it's important for conveying your message correctly, then you should state it outright. If you give an example about a person's non-scholarship and people start saying "oh, but that doesn't need to be an example of non-scholarship", then it's a much worse example than one that doesn't prompt that response.

Comment author: Sly 06 January 2011 03:51:15AM 2 points [-]

Another thing to think about was that Hitchens was in a debate. The Christians in the audience that he is trying to convince will not be charitable.