Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all
comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a single comment's thread.
Show more comments above.
That is true. In a disagreement where the root of the disagreement is applying different meanings to the word 'better', properly defining that term would identify the true disagreement straight away. The double crux method, by seeking equivalent statements for each position, brings that disagreement in terminology to light almost immediately (where a word-by-word process of definitions might well get mired down in the definition of 'steel' and whether or not it includes small amounts of chromium - which might be interesting and informative on its own, but does nothing to resolve the disagreement).
This appears to suggest that double crux, applied properly, will work in every case where the true disagreement is a matter is inconsistent definition of terms (as above). I'd go further, and say that the double crux method will also work in cases where the disagreement is due to one of the debaters having made an error in a mathematical equation that he believes supports his argument. So, when you don't know the root cause of the argument, double crux is probably at least as fast a route to finding that cause as a careful definition of all terms, and probably faster.
Pick a username and password for your Less Wrong and Less Wrong Wiki accounts. You will receive an email to verify your account.
Already have an account and just want to login?
Forgot your password?