conchis comments on Catchy Fallacy Name Fallacy (and Supporting Disagreement) - Less Wrong

23 Post author: JGWeissman 21 May 2009 06:01AM

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

Comments (56)

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

Comment author: MichaelBishop 21 May 2009 07:40:18PM 1 point [-]

I see your point. In some cases maybe examples could be provided without explicitly stating who said what. But obviously we don't want to outlaw critiquing each other.

Its interesting. I didn't explicitly criticize this post, but my short comment, requesting examples could be considered a somewhat vague implicit criticism. So I may have just done something quite similar to what JGWeissman was criticizing in his post!

The truth is, I probably wouldn't have requested an example if I was confident that JGWeissman was making an important criticism.

The truth is, one good example wouldn't do that much for me, because my skepticism is about how common this "fallacy" is and how well people were dealing with it before JGWeissman gave it a name. Maybe I just haven't been that observant on this point, but I haven't gotten the impression its a big deal.

Comment author: JGWeissman 24 May 2009 06:37:58PM 0 points [-]

Maybe I just haven't been that observant on this point, but I haven't gotten the impression its a big deal.

You indeed could be more observant on this point. In this comment, you do exactly what I described, accusation of a fallacy with a link and no explanation. Perhaps you could support the claim by referencing the comment you replied to, though the fact that you did not remains. And it is not trivial to demonstrate that the fallacy mentioned is really any sort of cognitive error, see my response to the comment you agreed with.

Comment author: MichaelBishop 24 May 2009 10:45:05PM *  0 points [-]

In saying "I haven't gotten the impression its a big deal," I did not mean that people never link to posts or articles about fallacies or biases without also writing a great deal of explanation for how the link is relevant. I meant that I don't find such comments like this (short, critical, with a link) particularly problematic.

Often times a short, critical, comment with a link is all I need. It may sometimes even communicate the key information more efficiently than a longer comment. If it is insufficient, I will ask for more explanation.