= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Better Disagreement - 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 (84)
Even DH7 presumes that the argument is wrong to begin with, which is not overly rational.
How about:
DH8, Clarifying When the Central Point is Indeed Valid. E.g. "A model of a supernatural entity as an ancestral simulator can be derived from the Simulation Argument framework. The validity of this framework and its approach to the question of Origin is now examined..."
or even
DH9, Update Your Model Based on Opposing Views. E.g. Given the <opposing argument>, which appears to be valid provided the <following conditions> hold, I have updated my priors to account for the Universe as described by <opponent>. The next order of business is to jointly examine our priors and come up with a more reliable model.
One problem with your proposed DH8 and DH9 is that sometimes they just aren't possible. Sometimes people are just wrong and no update is necessary. The rest of the hierarchy is always possible regardless of the strength of the argument. DH8/9 not so much.
As I mentioned, unless your opponent is stupid or trolling, in which case any level of engagement is probably wrong, there is a high chance that there is something to their claims, limited in applicability though they might end up being, so DH8/9 (and maybe higher?) are worth at least considering.