= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vive-ut-Vivas comments on Amanda Knox: post mortem - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (483)
I'm not sure that's the way to put it, but let me ask you this: How much stock do you put in the unsupported assertion of an anonymous person on the internet?
Please quote me where I made that assertion.
Well I need to be decent at a minimum. But basically yeah. I assess cases day in and day out. That's a huge advantage. I know that I'm much better than I was 15 years ago, even though I was just as smart then as I am now.
Sure, getting this kind of feedback is a good way to improve one's judgment. Do you seriously disagree?
:shrug: I agree, but employment is sadly not the only motivator for self-deception. Let me ask you this:
Do you agree that the tone of your post is a bit nasty?
How much stock do you put in the supported assertion of an anonymous person on the internet? I think that's a more relevant question here. To what degree does a poster's anonymity detract from his argument?
Quite a lot. But I don't think that's the right question. See, the basic argument being made is that even though I have considered Mr. Anonymous' arguments and decided they were without merit, I should still be significantly less certain of my position simply because a number of these anonymous people (making basically the same weak arguments) disagree with me. Did I misunderstand the argument being made?
Yes. The point is that in "deciding [the arguments] were without merit", you didn't take sufficient account of the quality (not merely the quantity, by the way) of the people making them.
If a high-quality person says "X is true", you might be able to dismiss it if you have sufficient knowledge. But if they say "X is true because of A,B, and C", you can't dismiss X without also dismissing A, B, and C. And here the problem is with your judgement about A, B, and C, not (just) your judgement about X.
I'm pretty confident that I did. If you see a problem with the arguments I made back in the original thread, please feel free to respond (preferably there) and I'm happy to consider your point in good faith.