bogus comments on [LINK] Two Modes of Discourse: Taking everything personally v. debate as sport - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Vaniver 10 December 2012 07:46AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (61)

Comments (61)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: bogus 10 December 2012 01:31:13PM *  3 points [-]

This is actually a very good link, it should not be sitting at a negative score. The description of the "ARGUMENT AS SPORT" mode of intellectual discourse is especially interesting: LW has always maintained that factionalized debate does not promote good epistemic rationality, but it seems that it does have some redeeming qualities after all.

My guess is that the most rationality-conducive style actually features some kind of tensegrity of the two basic kinds of debate. The two failure modes to be averted are (1) excessive groupthink and a fixation on petty etiquette, and (2) a complete lack of shared values, leading to hyper-factionalization.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 10 December 2012 02:56:12PM 5 points [-]

LW has always maintained that factionalized debate does not promote good epistemic rationality, but it seems that it does have some redeeming qualities after all.

It has redeeming qualities, compared to sensitivity discourse. It doesn't mean it's the best you can do.

I recall seeing a proposed hierarchy on argument strategies once. That sound familiar to anyone?

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 10 December 2012 03:12:26PM 7 points [-]

This one of Paul Graham?

Comment author: buybuydandavis 10 December 2012 03:56:30PM 3 points [-]

That's a pretty good one. Thanks.

But I think there was one with levels beyond "refutation of the central point". More of a "delimit and extend", where you show the bounds of validity of an argument, and what's true more generally beyond those bounds.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 10 December 2012 04:07:59PM *  4 points [-]

Better Disagreement

Comment author: buybuydandavis 10 December 2012 04:20:44PM 4 points [-]

Looks like Paul Graham+.

Still, at the end, one has refuted something. I think the highest levels should find the value in the argument you're refuting, and incorporate it into your own result. Synthesize, instead of refuting.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 December 2012 07:12:35PM 4 points [-]

The "argument as sport" mode doesn't seem terribly factionalized, at least not in the sense of arguments as soldiers.

Within this form of heterotopic discourse, one can play devil’s advocate, have one’s tongue in one’s cheek, purposefully overstate one’s case, or attack positions that one agrees with.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit