fubarobfusco comments on Self-Congratulatory Rationalism - Less Wrong

51 Post author: ChrisHallquist 01 March 2014 08:52AM

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

Comments (395)

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

Comment author: Bugmaster 04 March 2014 11:50:59PM 5 points [-]

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not a big fan of the principle of charity—often defined as the rule that you should interpret other people's arguments on the assumption that they are not saying anything stupid.

As far as I understand, the Principle of Charity is defined differently; it states that you should interpret other people's arguments on the assumption that these people are arguing in good faith. That is to say, you should assume that your interlocutor honestly believes in everything he's saying, and that he has no ulterior motive beyound getting his point across. He may be entirely ignorant, stupid, or both; but he's not a liar or a troll.

This principle allows all parties to focus on the argument, and to stick to the topic at hand -- as opposed to spiraling into the endless rabbit-holes of psychoanalyzing each other.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 05 March 2014 07:31:19PM 3 points [-]

Wikipedia quotes a few philosophers on the principle of charity:

Blackburn: "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

Davidson: "We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimises agreement."

Also, Dennett in The Intentional Stance quotes Quine that "assertions startlingly false on the face of them are likely to turn on hidden differences of language", which seems to be a related point.