private_messaging comments on Reductionism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (150)
So, the introduction of "automated" to this discussion feels like a complete nonsequitor to me. Can you clarify why you introduce it?
It feels like you use 'questions' a lot more than usual, and it looks very much like a rhetorical device because you inject counter points into your questions. Can you clarify why you do it? (see what I did there?)
Sidenote: Actually, questions are often a sneaky rhetorical device - you can modify the statement in the way of your choosing, and then ask questions about that. You see that in political debates all the time.
Agreed that questions can be used in underhanded ways, but this example does seem more helpful at focusing the conversation than something like:
That could easily go in other directions; this makes clear that the question is "how did we get from A to B?" while sharing control of the topic change / clarification.
Sure, I'd be happy to: because I want answers to those questions.
For example, whowhowho's introduction of "automated" did in fact feel like a nonsequitor to me, and I wanted to understand better why they'd introduced it, to see whether there was some clever reasoning there I'd failed to follow. Their answer to my question clarified that, and I thanked them for the clarification, and we were done.
You asked a question.
I answered it.
It really isn't that complicated.
That said, I suspect from context that you mean to imply that you did something sneaky and rhetorical just then, just as you seem to believe that I do something sneaky and rhetorical when I ask questions.
If that's true, then no, I guess I don't see what you did there.
Yes. So are statements.