= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Catchy Fallacy Name Fallacy (and Supporting 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 (56)
This problem, if it happens frequently here, seems likely symptomatic of a larger tendency: folks here like accumulating catchy rationalist buzzwords, and dismissing the arguments of others by simply linking to the relevant OB/LW article.
This seems to apply to biases and other sorts of errors (or even just common objections!) as much as fallacies.
ETA: link - this is not a fallacy.
Not just when dismissing arguments. Discussions here--even top-level posts--often remind me of my sister's complaint about Louis Diat's Basic French Cooking--every recipe refers to other recipes, so you end up having to slaughter a calf in order to make vichysoisse.
It makes it bloody hard for us newbies who have read less than a few dozen posts on LW and OB--and internalized even fewer.
I realize it's difficult with many concepts being discussed here, but when possible try to define concepts briefly and clearly when writing about them?
And yes: instead of just naming a fallacy, clearly demonstrate how it is instantiated in the material being replied to. (In itself, an excellent teaching moment.)