= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
loup-vaillant comments on How to deal with non-realism? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (168)
I'm more with Orwell, seeing the totalitarian dangers from non-realism.
I don't know if you want to yank your Mom's chain, but I think it would be fun to deal with irrationalists of all stripes by gleefully hitting the gibberish ball back into their court. Contradict yourself, then say that you're "beyond" such limited thinking as logic. Claim "faith" in your nonsense. When she points out your claims are false, decry her totalitarianism.
And above all, do this when she has a practical purpose in mind and wants to get something real done.
A lot of people peddle this claptrap when they argue. Sam Harris has a catchy and appropriate term for it - playing tennis without a net. I think the only real response is to find where they want a net, and start playing without it, and see how they like it.
That's… tempting. She will yell at me for sure, though. Plus, if I say she does the same thing, she will say it's not the same (she told me it's not the same, so I know she's aware of her double standard).
Is it tempting because it'd be amusing, or because it's likely to change her mind?
You know her better than me, but in my experience antagonizing people rarely works. I don't know what would, unfortunately.
Because it might change her mind. But the odds are not good. It would also not be amusing at all. I think I won't attempt it.