= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CCC comments on Self-Congratulatory Rationalism - 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 (395)
Then "cogent" was probably the wrong word to use.
I'd need a word that means pertinent, relevant, and believed to have been most likely true (or at least useful to say) by the person who said it; but not necessarily actually true.
Okay, I appear to have been using a different definition (see definition two).
I think at this point, so as not to get stuck on semantics, we should probably taboo the word 'cogent'.
(Having said that, I do agree anyone with access to the statistics you quoted would most likely find RomeoSteven's comments unreasonable, unconvincing and unpersuasive).
Then you may very well be effectively applying the principle already. Looking at your reply to RomeoStevens supports this assertion.
TheAncientGeek assented to that choice of word, so I stuck with it. His conception of the POC might well be different from yours and everyone else's (which is a reason I'm trying to pin down precisely what TheAncientGeek means).
Fair enough, I was checking different dictionaries (and I've hitherto never noticed other people using "cogent" for "pertinent").
Maybe, though I'm confused here by TheAncientGeek saying in one breath that I applied the POC to RomeoStevens, but then agreeing ("Thats exactly what I mean.") in the next breath with a definition of the POC that implies I didn't apply the POC to RomeoStevens.
I think that you and I are almost entirely in agreement, then. (Not sure about TheAncientGeek).
I think you're dealing with double-illusion-of-transparency issues here. He gave you a definition ("treat everyone's comments as though they were made by someone sane and intelligent at the time") by which he meant some very specific concept which he best approximated by that phrase (call this Concept A). You then considered this phrase, and mapped it to a similar-but-not-the-same concept (Concept B) which you defined and tried to point out a shortcoming in ("namely, noticing and throwing away any initial suspicion I have that a comment's wrong, and then forcing myself to pretend the comment must be correct in some obscure way.").
Now, TheAncientGeek is looking at your words (describing Concept B) and reading into them the very similar Concept A; where your post in response to RomeoStevens satisfies Concept A but not Concept B.
Nailing down the difference between A and B will be extremely tricky and will probably require both of you to describe your concepts in different words several times. (The English language is a remarkably lossy means of communication).
Your diagnosis sounds all too likely. I'd hoped to minimize the risk of this kind of thing by concretizing and focusing on a specific, publicly-observable example, but that might not have helped.