= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stefan_Schubert comments on Do we underuse the genetic heuristic? - 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 (18)
Hal Finney invented the term "genetic heuristic" here at Less Wrong...but it is true that it isn't a standard term (like "the genetic fallacy" is).
I'm not a native English speaker either so my linguistic sensitivity isn't the best. Is "origin heuristic" optimal? I'm thinking it might be good if the term included something about "person" or "speaker" since that makes it clear that you're attacking or supporting the speaker's reliability (rather than the proposition itself). Of course "ad hominem" does this but then again there is a case against using latin terms that people don't understand.
Sorry, that I charged the wrong person of LW ;)
If I say something it's wrong because it's the party line of the Republican party, I'm not addressing a single person or speaker. I think "origin heuristic" covers that claim quite well.
Do you have a motivation of why would want to be more specific and not include groups, movements and other sources of ideas from which a idea can originate but which are no persons?
My only objection to "the origin heuristic" is that it might not be sufficiently catchy and intuitive, since it's pretty abstract. That's why I thought something to do with "person" might be preferable. Something to do with "source" is another alternative.