Larks comments on Philosophical Landmines - Less Wrong

84 [deleted] 08 February 2013 09:22PM

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

Comments (145)

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

Comment author: whowhowho 08 February 2013 01:39:33PM 7 points [-]

Landmines in a topic make it really hard to discuss ideas or do work in these fields, because chances are, someone is going to step on one, and then there will be a big noisy mess that interferes with the rather delicate business of thinking carefully about confusing ideas.

Have mainstream philosophers come up with a solution to that? Can LessWronigans learn from them? Do LessWrongians need to teach them?

Comment author: Larks 09 February 2013 03:57:11PM 14 points [-]

Try to come up with the least controversial premise that you can use to support your argument, not just the first belief that comes to mind that will support it.

To use a (topical for me) example. someone at Giving What We Can might support effective charities "because it maximises expected utility so you're oblidged to do so, duh", but "if you can do a lot of good for little sacrifice, you should" is a better premise to rely on when talking to people in general, as it's weaker but still does the job.