lessdazed comments on Intro-level training materials for rationality / critical thinking - Less Wrong

9 Post author: lukeprog 20 September 2011 03:03AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (58)

Tags: rationality

Comments (58)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: lessdazed 22 November 2011 07:44:41AM * 2 points [-]

The evidence is: In his description of conspiricies in part 1, he never even once mentiones the word evidence.

The map is not the territory.

He doesnt prove that what he considers to be a conspiricy theory IS infact either a theory

Without evidence to verify any of his own argument, he decends into fallacies

You didn't cite any. You didn't provide any reason to believe your claim.

miss representing the point.

The video's creator's name should be capitalized. Also, she prefers to be addressed as Miss Shirley Representing the Point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please read the material that is the background for many on this site if you are going to try to engage with the ideas here: Map and Territory, Words

Comment author: CriticalSteel comment score below threshold [+] (19 children)

Comment author: CriticalSteel 22 November 2011 07:20:32PM * -12 points [-]

sigh You obviously have no idea how to debate.

Your first point must ALLWAYS contain the evidence it is based on, BEFORE moving on. For example;

"Pigs can fly, flying is achieved by the length of the wing being greater on the top, creating an area of low pressure, effectively sucking the plane into the sky."

The first 3 words, were not verified in any way.

If it is indeed "the map and not the territory" as you say. Then it is the arguers fault (arguers for the proposition).

You see; debating method (all academic debating methods) require the argument is taken in turns. And if the guy has not presented any evidence at the end of the first sentence, let alone after a 15 min and part 1 of the video. Then they are going to get torn a new one, by the other team (arguers against the proposition).

“You didn't cite any[fallacies].”

I said: “generalisations, using the words 'all conspiracy theorists'”

That counts as 1 fallacy (why did you miss that?), and in debating terms, he is now 1 point down. My argument, which contains no fallacies (and you haven’t found any yet). Is still at 0. Therefore not much more analysis is needed to know he is wrong.

“The video's creator's name should be capitalized. Also, she prefers to be addressed as Miss Shirley Representing the Point.” Wat… oh I see… what a robust argument… descending into criticizing spelling errors.

“Please read the material that is the background for many on this site if you are going to try to engage with the ideas here: Map and Territory, Words”

I might… but as of yet, your “map and territory” is looking mighty fallacious. I really REALLY doubt that you can vindicate it.

I’m seeing the shadow of flaws and fallacies, cast throughout this entire website, for 2 main reasons; no experience debating and actually testing the theory, and, very little experience using strict critical thinking. And above all else, TOO MANY PSYCHOLOGY THEORIES.

Psychology AND theory, bare no impact upon evidence based arguments. The evidence is either real or fake, true or false. It exists in a binary state of 1 or 0, it does not matter who is looking at it, or what state their mind is in, as evidence is independent of mind as it exists outside of it. (oh here come the thumbs-down due to biased psychologists)

Comment author: lavalamp 22 November 2011 08:04:07PM 8 points [-]

You obviously have no idea how to debate. Your first point must ALLWAYS contain the evidence it is based on, BEFORE moving on. For example;

Appealing to "proper" debating technique is going to be counter-productive here. We're interested in getting the right answer. Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons, which is exactly backwards from what a responsible rationalist should do.

When a bunch of smart people disagree with you, sometimes it is because they are crazy; sometimes, because you are crazy. You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively.

Comment author: CriticalSteel comment score below threshold [+] (3 children)

Comment author: CriticalSteel comment score below threshold [+] (13 children)

Comment author: CriticalSteel 22 November 2011 11:10:16PM * -7 points [-]

"Appealing to "proper" debating technique is going to be counter-productive here."

What!? Appealing to logical, turn based, evidence based arguments, is not relevant to this argument?!?

"getting the right answer."

And you think.... that thats going to happen without debating right? Right?

"Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons"

No it doesnt. Being for the proposition of an argument is NOT a conclusion, it is a theory.

You get points here because your actually talking about scientific method (i hope).

"You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively."

I'm willing to admit thats possible. But my last post. Is fine the way it is.

You didnt prove anything, and my later researching of "map and territory" or "belief and reality" (which i take to be a theory which is a proposed addition to the list of flaws and fallacies.) didnt lend any greater credibility to your point.

Its use of the term belief immediately characterises my argument as a belief, instead of evidenced based. Beliefs do not require evidence, they require faith. Therefore your fallacy does not apply here. Furthermore, it is very fallacious and risky to use this fallacy "belief and reality" because it can be stated, without the user ever having to prove the veracity of “belief and reality” by; disproving the evidence submitted, proving something is a ‘belief’ and based on faith, providing contrary evidence to prove that ‘reality’ is indeed different from the so called ‘belief’.

This new fallacy, "belief and reality" instead substitutes a group of different fallacies which could be used instead. They are:

appeal to authority (in the case the map/belief is issued by an authority that does not evidence that it is correct)
correlation not causation (where it is confused which is the map/belief and which is the reality)
thin end of the wedge (where the maps representatives is taken to extremes)
restricting the options (where the map omits valuable information about reality)

Of all the fallacies I expect that restricting the options is the one that is the most representative of the bias their trying to convey here.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 November 2011 02:30:55AM 6 points [-]

Your highschool debate club appears to have done you a disservice. Reality is not changed by your ability to spin the opponent's words into the nearest accessible fallacy so that you can prove yourself superior to the enemy in the eyes of a judge. In my observation the more skill someone has in debating (and more importantly the more they focus on it) the more they are able to prove how unnecessary it is to update based on evidence. Whether you are too far gone to recover is yet to be seen but your arguments here remind me more of boxing than of thinking. Which is fine - epistemic rationality is a less useful skill in most situations than rhetoric.

Comment author: CriticalSteel comment score below threshold [+] (11 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 23 November 2011 01:06:03PM * 7 points [-]

I believe I have resolved my former uncertainty to my satisfaction. The parent is an example of the kind of arguing that I associate with 'debating' but fails to meet even the most basic standards of rational discussion that is accepted here. It would be damn near perfect when participating in the MENSA online discussion groups which I have been involved in. Since you are most likely intelligent enough to join that community I expect you would gain much more status and personal satisfaction demonstrating your skills there than you are likely to achieve here.

For the sake of brevity assume that the remainder of my reply consists of quotes of most of the sentences of the parent, each followed by "straw man", "non sequitur" or "no, that's just plain wrong".

(And no. For most part the above does not consist of argument. Merely discription and observation which readers can agree with or disagree with themselves based on their own observations of the context and intellectually oriented social dynamics. Basically I just agree with lavalamp in the ancestor and will downvote all comments of the form seen here without further engagement.)

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

Comment author: lavalamp 23 November 2011 08:13:33PM 5 points [-]

Rationality is not a game you play by twisting words into the most similar sounding fallacy. Please go troll somewhere else.

Comment author: wedrifid 24 November 2011 01:16:46AM 3 points [-]

Rationality is not a game you play by twisting words into the most similar sounding fallacy. Please go troll somewhere else.

I'm actually beginning to think you are right and he is trolling. I had originally just modeled him as just another victim of too much debate practice (and a tad too much arrogance to be healthy). But surely this caricature of the phenomenon can't be sincere? I'm not even sure which way giving the benefit of the doubt would go here.

continue this thread »

Comment author: CriticalSteel comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

lessdazed comments on Intro-level training materials for rationality / critical thinking - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (58)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (58)

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