= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on Open Thread, July 1-15, 2013 - 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 (342)
I noticed a strategy that many people seem to use; for lack of a better name, I will call it "updating the applause lights". This is how it works:
You have something that you like and it is part of your identity. Let's say that you are a Green. You are proud that Greens are everything good, noble, and true; unlike those stupid evil Blues.
Gradually you discover that the sky is blue. First you deny it, but at some moment you can't resist the overwhelming evidence. But at that moment of history, there are many Green beliefs, and the belief that the sky is green is only one of them, although historically the central one. So you downplay it and say: "All Green beliefs are true, but some of them are meant metaphorically, not literally, such as the belief that the sky is green. This means that we are right, and the Blues are wrong; just as we always said."
Someone asks: "But didn't Greens say the sky is green? Because that seems false to me." And you say: "No, that's a strawman! You obviously don't understand Greens, you are full of prejudice. You should be ashamed of yourself." The someone gives an example of a Green that literally believed the sky is green. You say: "Okay, but this person is not a real Green. It's a very extreme person." Or if you can't deny it, you say: "Yes, even withing the Green movement, some people may be confused and misunderstand our beliefs, also our beliefs have evolved during time, but trust me that being Green is not about believing that the sky is literally green." And in some sense, you are right. (And the Blues are wrong. As it has always been.)
To be specific, I have several examples in my mind; religion is just one of them; probably any political or philosophical opinion that had to be updated significantly and needs to deny its original version.
This sounds very much like religion - I'd be interested in hearing about a solid non-religious example.
Let's avoid object level examples until we resolve how to distinguish this dishonest rhetorical move from honest updates on the low validity of prior arguments now abandoned. Otherwise, we get bogged down in mindkiller without any general insight into how to be more rational.
But aren't we all agreed the specific examples are super-helpful for understanding a general phenomenon?
Politics. Social issues. You see a lot of it when circumstances change and a political party or activist organisation has to then reconcile the conflict between consequentialism and deontology, and somehow satisfy both sets of followers.
I discussed this with coffeespoons yesterday; the trouble is that political leaders often speak much less ambiguously than religious ones, so there's a lot less room to say "Well, what Marx really meant was..."
I dunno. I am reluctant to name present-day political examples on LW, but you doubtless feel a slight urge to throw your computing device against the wall when you see some current eloquent bit of black-has-always-been-white spin from our esteemed leaders here in the UK.
I found myself at our local church a couple of Sundays ago, where the sermon was a really very good polemic conclusively demonstrating that Galatians 2 rules racism as unChristian. I thought it was marvellously reasoned and really quite robust, except for the problem of large chunks of observed Christian history. (The resolution: you can, of course, prove anything and its opposite from a compilation that size.)