= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on Open thread, Jul. 11 - Jul. 17, 2016 - 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 (131)
I can guess that if you were to meet a flat-earther with the intent of engaging with his ideas, you would start thinking of what things he might show you and why those things wouldn't actually demonstrate a flat earth. That does not mean you are making "excuses in advance".
"He's probably going to show me how ships disappear on the horizon, but I know that is affected by air refraction." "Oh, you're just making an excuse in advance."
What empiric standard would you use to classify things as making excuses in advance?
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that "I can respond to any claim he's likely to make" isn't it. I'm not sure there is such a thing at all, short of having your idea be outright unfalsifiable.
It seems like there something that the OP means with "making excuses in advance". It might not what you think would be rightly called "making excuses in advance".
I don't think that category exists in a way where it can be successfully used to distinguish people who have anticipations and are identified with a belief from people who are just identified with it.