You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

jsalvatier comments on The elephant in the room, AMA - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: calcsam 12 May 2011 02:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (428)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jsalvatier 12 May 2011 03:36:44PM 7 points [-]

Too adversarial.

Comment author: wedrifid 12 May 2011 03:46:53PM 18 points [-]

Too adversarial.

No, and I take a mild degree of offence at the accusation. Ask Me Anything taken literally. It is exactly what the 'elephant in the room' is. I am being frank, not adversarial and given calcsam's experiences and the emotional resilience that he would have needed to develop while evangelizing I know I don't have to tiptoe through a minefield to protect his feelings.

If I am obliged to maintain a social facade even in a thread specifically created to asking this question then the only real recourse I would have is to do whatever is appropriate to eliminate the necessity for me to speak bullshit (or act in a misleading way that is analogous to bullshit).

Comment author: jsalvatier 12 May 2011 04:11:09PM * 13 points [-]

I do not object to the subject of your question, but the way you put it. I think this

You are clearly not capable of thinking rationally with respect to a fundamental belief where evidence makes the question overdetermined.

Is what I was reacting to.

Presumably, he disputes that, so for the purposes of your conversation it is not 'clear'. Phrasing this same sentiment as 'I do not believe you are capable of thinking rationally ..., and you will have to convince me otherwise before I listen to you' or something along those lines would be a less adversarial way of asking this question. For example, I think Costanza asks roughly the same question below in a frank way.

Comment author: Clippy 12 May 2011 04:37:40PM * 15 points [-]

I do not object to the subject of your question, but the way you put it.

I differ in that I do object to the subject of User:wedrifid's question, in particular, the part you just excerpted.

If being B1 refuses to update to being B2's beliefs on account of B2 being stupid, and this judgment of B2's stupidity, in turn, is solely based on B2 satisfying B1 =/= B2, then B1 is "begging the question" (assuming a conclusion to prove it).

There are very good arguments to reject religious beliefs; however, when one uses the argument that an exponent of one of them is stupid because they so believe and therefore must not be worth listening to, then one has desensitized one's worldmodel to evidence, locking in any errors one current subscribes to -- and this remains true even if B2 is pure error.

No belief system or decision theory can be judged solely relative to itself; otherwise, it would be impossible to change one's beliefs or decision theory. Because the fact that one possesses a belief system is not definitive evidence of its truth, any belief system must permit situations in which it would update, or else it will indefinitely reproduce the same errors under reflection.

User:wedrifid makes the error in this statement, no matter how well its phrasing is changed to accord with human customs and status systems:

You are clearly not capable of thinking rationally with respect to a fundamental belief where evidence makes the question overdetermined.

Comment author: wedrifid comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: Clippy 12 May 2011 07:56:42PM 2 points [-]

The parent presents a a straw man. Clippy has made an error while parsing the comment text.

Show how the position I attributed to you differs from the position you actually took.

Comment author: wedrifid 12 May 2011 08:45:51PM * 0 points [-]

Show how the position I attributed to you differs from the position you actually took.

This is a form of question that is usually unreasonable to ask. It places a burden on the recipient of the straw man of trying to guess what on earth the speaker was thinking to make them think they were the same in the first place. It is a rare instance where the worse the misrepresentation is the harder it is to demonstrate exactly why. Sometimes you just have to say "Yes, I know Chewbacca is a wookie but why on earth do you think that means he's a scarecrow?"

In this case I can at least point to some of the bits that don't match.

If being B1 refuses to update to being B2's beliefs on account of B2 being stupid, and this judgment of B2's stupidity, in turn, is solely based on B2 satisfying B1 =/= B2, then B1 is "begging the question" (assuming a conclusion to prove it).

'Refuses to update' doesn't come into it. "Questioning the expected value of listening to advice from" would fit or even "Considering the possibility that absorbing the advice of someone with different values could result in net disutility".
The 'begging the question' part verges on 'too nonsensical for a diff to even produce compression' (ie. They are just two completely different things.) A recursive evaluation of the plausibility of the Mormon beliefs to questionable thinking back to Mormon beliefs being implausible just isn't going on. Calcsam has been rather careful not to (look like he is trying to) persuade people about his brand of religion. The relevance in terms of epistemic value would be from a possible association between the beliefs of a religious group and the beliefs of one of their missionaries about how rationalists should behave.
Not only did I not beg the question I didn't even privilege the hypothesis enough to ask it. I don't go around thinking "I have no particular evidence singling it out from all the other supersitions but what if the Mormon spinoff religion is the ultimate source of Truth?"

Comment author: Clippy 12 May 2011 09:12:15PM * 6 points [-]

This is a form of question that is usually unreasonable to ask.

If you perceive it as unreasonable to be asked to explain how your position differs from the one attributed to you, then you almost certainly have insufficient grounds to accuse others of strawmanning. If you really are being strawmanned, you can just say, "I said XY. You claimed I just said X." Because there is no such difference you can point to, that should have made you extremely hesistant to diagnose errors you feel I made as being type:strawman.

(Strangely, you seem to think that the bigger the difference, the more unreasonable the request for proof of strawmanning, as when you say "too nonsensical for a diff to even produce compression" -- a diff failing to produce compression would make your job easier and your claim stronger!)

'Refuses to update' doesn't come into it. "Questioning the expected value of listening to advice from" would fit [...]

The distinction between the two is not large enough to justify claiming that my point was irrelevant at strawman level. Whether you are refusing to update, or refusing to listen to things on the basis that they are intended to persuade you to update, is irrelevant, and the fact that my argument specifically called out only one of those does not thereby make it a strawman.

It is not enough that I failed to use a full blockquote of the your remarks, there must be substantive mis-attribution before a strawmanning claim is justified.

The 'begging the question' part [...]

Not only did I not beg the question [...]

Whether or not you begged the question is irrelevant to your claim of being strawmanned. That you begged the question was an argument I made. Proving that you didn't beg the question would do nothing to prove I misrepresented your position -- only that my argument regarding your position is wrong.

You seem to be making the common human error of equating, "You made arguments against my position I find to be in error" with "you responded to a position I never took."

It is unfortunate that we cannot spend more time at the object level since this baseless charge of misattribution must be resolved first. Please do not make such claims in the future unless you can prove it with "I said XY. You claimed I just said X" or something of similar simplicity. Rather, focus on the object level without bringing in the additional distraction of whether you were misrepresented.

Comment author: wedrifid comment score below threshold [+] (3 children)

Comment author: shokwave comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 12 May 2011 05:57:27PM -1 points [-]

Phrasing this same sentiment as 'I do not believe you are capable of thinking rationally ..., and you will have to convince me otherwise before I listen to you'

Ironically those suggestions convey a worse picture of of the opening poster and declare a stricter requirement for what it would take for me to listen. My observation clearly indicated both in the quote you made and in my following paragraph that the flawed thinking is with respect to the religious belief. Further, I don't think (and didn't suggest that) the OP would need to convince me of a specific kind of rational thinking in order for it to be worth listening. Instead I gave him a platform from which to enumerate reasons. The best of those reasons would actually speak of potential instrumental value and not epistemic awesomeness.

Adding "I do not believe" before a statement is actually just redundant a kind of false humility. Eliezer actually wrote a post that touched on this specifically, does anyone recall the reference?

Comment author: thomblake 12 May 2011 11:38:35PM 0 points [-]

You could be thinking of Qualitatively Confused - though that post is mostly about how 'believe' is not quite redundant.

jsalvatier comments on The elephant in the room, AMA - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (428)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (428)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login