= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on We prosecute CEOs for failing to do due diligence. But with people, we call it 'faith' - 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 (40)
So you chose to say something only partly right, because the complete truth would scare 'normal' people? I question the effectiveness of this strategy when arguing for an objective standard of right-ness.
'The universe as we know it came into existence X years ago". No need to say "was created" or bring in "what came before?" into the conversation at all, as it's not the main subject, just an example.
Yes. I chose to say something only partly right. If I was talking to a creationist, I would suggest that maybe god could have used natural processes to create the world - because if I told them that there was no evidence for a god's action on the universe, they'd assume that I was doing the devil's work and not listen.
If I ended a conversation with my interlocutor's beliefs now being one step closer to the truth, I would feel like I'd done a good job. I can always shift them again next time around.
I take your point about the alternative phrasing. I don't think that that would have undermined my point, so I should have used it.