srdiamond comments on Rationality Quotes December 2011 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Jayson_Virissimo 02 December 2011 06:01AM

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

Comments (577)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_M 06 December 2011 04:48:35AM *  8 points [-]

I don't understand what exactly is supposed to be so shockingly "primitive" or illogical about Malcolm's statements. The remarks about the national character of the British and their level of civilization and decency can be interpreted as a reasonable belief that conspiring to assassinate a foreign head of state would be a violation of certain norms that the British government is known to follow consistently in practice, and expected to follow by a broad consensus of the British people -- such consensus being strong enough that it can be considered part of their national character.

Now, one may argue that Malcolm had mistaken beliefs about some of the relevant facts here, but Wittgenstein's reaction looks in any case like a silly tantrum. He also seems to be using the Dark Arts tactic of throwing exalted and self-important rhetoric about general intellectual principles to draw attention away from his petty and unreasonable behavior.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 December 2011 10:17:38PM 4 points [-]

"a violation of certain norms that the British government is known to follow consistently in practice"

What does "what is known" have to do with what is in fact? The suppressed premise is that citizens know what their governments do, even those parts of the government termed its "secret service." That governments don't operate by ordinary standards of "decency" has been known at least since Machiavelli.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 07 December 2011 01:17:22AM *  1 point [-]

Even if the deeds of the secret services are fully secret (a big if), your argument is still incorrect. Assassinations of heads of state are rare and unusual events, and are normally investigated thoroughly. It may be that in every such assassination prior to 1939, the evidence points towards culprits other than the British secret services.

(Whether or not this is actually the case is another question; I am merely demonstrating that your argument doesn't work even if its assumptions are fully granted.)

Comment author: wedrifid 07 December 2011 01:58:03AM 0 points [-]

What does "what is known" have to do with what is in fact?

By common usage (and probably definition) "is known" means that the subject is factual and people are aware of it. If people want to make a claim where the subject may not be factual but is still believed then they say 'is widely believed'.