lavalamp 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: 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.

Comment author: antigonus 24 November 2011 01:28:02AM 4 points [-]

I think he's a sincere teenager who's very new to this sort of thing. They sound, behave and type like that.

Comment author: lavalamp 24 November 2011 01:38:13AM 3 points [-]

It may not be worth the effort, but it would be interesting if one were blocked from posting as long as one's karma earned in past 30 days was < -30 or so. Might make it easier to ignore trolls.

Comment author: Desrtopa 25 November 2011 06:40:13AM 1 point [-]

I'd be wary of a limit like that which is so easily reached by a few downvotes on a top level post, at least if the person has a record of positive contribution. Maybe if their karma earned in the last 30 days is <-30, and their total karma is not greater than 0?

Comment author: wedrifid 24 November 2011 02:24:23AM 1 point [-]

It may not be worth the effort, but it would be interesting if one were blocked from posting as long as one's karma earned in past 30 days was < -30 or so. Might make it easier to ignore trolls.

I've been thinking something along those lines myself. Although it would be kind of awkward if one of us made a single main page post that people didn't find interesting and was downvoted just to -4. I think Eliezer and Luke may even have done that at least once out of all their respective posts. It just takes doing that once in a month that they haven't contributed much and bam, no more commenting for those top contributors for a month!

A solution that might work is having comments by < -10 total karma users greyed out or otherwise made less visible. Just any sort of automated troll warning system at all would be great!

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 November 2011 02:09:16AM 2 points [-]

My $0.02: I think benefit of the doubt would involve assuming that he genuinely believes that what he's doing has value as a way of arriving at truth, and relatedly believes that the fact that the rest of us aren't doing the same thing (and, further, are not supportive of his practice when he comes here and demonstrates it to us) means that we're not really interested in rationality, just signalling.

Well, that, and that he's kind of obnoxious.

(Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that's [i]true[/i] -- my confidence level in my predictions about other people's motives is extremely low -- just that it seems like the most charitable interpretation.)

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

lavalamp 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