= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on In Defense of Tone Arguments - 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 (172)
Conservation of expected evidence applies here. If you believe that people responding to your attack on Dawkins constitutes evidence for that attack, then in order to be consistent you have to believe that if people had ignored your attack, then this would be evidence against the attack. Do you believe that?
Only provided Dawkins was not in strong support here. There's an asymmetry, because two things have to be true for people to ignore the substance of the argument in favor of the example - they have to care about the substance of the example, and then they have to be offended by the characterization of it. If they don't care about Dawkins, there won't be much to be offended about to begin with.
A implies B does not imply that B implies A.
But none of that matters, because that was a tongue-in-cheek response to somebody pursuing a line of argument about something I didn't care about. It was not a serious response.