= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on Why do you really believe what you believe regarding controversial subjects? - 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 (37)
First thing to do is separate out disagreements on facts, from disagreements on predictions, to disagreements on predictions about interventions, to disagreements on preferences.
One thing to note about "experts". They may know their field, but statistical inference and decision theory are a part of most controversies, and next to no one knows that they are talking about there.
In a number of fields even this is dubious. In some fields the only apparent qualification for being an "expert" is to claim to be one to a reporter and then tell the reporter what he wants to hear.
Some people aren't an expert at anything but being a media personality.
Then there are some fields where "expertise" is measured by group applause, without any demonstration by anyone, anywhere that any of them can actually do anything concrete.
In addition to those separations, I wish the argument template could be separated out.
My head just isn't clicking on a meaning for your comment. Could you elaborate?
I mean the argument structure. For instance, X implies Y and Y implies Z so showing X is true proves conclusion Z.