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.

OrphanWilde comments on In Defense of Tone Arguments - Less Wrong Discussion

24 Post author: OrphanWilde 19 July 2012 07:48PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (172)

Comments (172)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: OrphanWilde 20 July 2012 01:30:23PM 0 points [-]

I'll have to concede that point then. Most of those weren't strong believers to begin with, but the presence of one refutes my argument, leaving me with the weaker form "The God Delusion does more damage than good."

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 July 2012 03:33:32PM * 10 points [-]

leaving me with the weaker form "The God Delusion does more damage than good."

I look forward to your substantiation, on a more robust basis than personal feeling.

Comment author: OrphanWilde comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 July 2012 08:56:59PM * 6 points [-]

That comes across as an attempt at a witty answer, but it avoids the substantial question I asked: You have claimed "The God Delusion does more damage than good." How do you support this claim, with something more than personal opinion? I ask that you substantiate the claim on a more robust basis than "I feel like it does", given that you literally didn't think the book worked at all until this thread snowed you under with examples, suggesting your personal feeling on the book is not well calibrated with its effectiveness in the world (as others have already alluded to), thus putting into slight question the chain of logic you considered it a good example of.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 27 July 2012 04:00:13AM 1 point [-]

I'm responding again: Short summary is, my apologies. I took out my irritation about the way the responses focused laser-like on something I didn't intend to talk about (note to self: people talk about what they want to talk about, not what I want to talk about) on you; you actually provided evidence, and put the argument to rest relatively quickly, and I should have tapped out explicitly then, instead of getting sarcastic and rude and hoping that would be the end of it.

Comment author: OrphanWilde comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 July 2012 10:46:33PM 7 points [-]

But I paid attention to tone and everything!

Comment author: OrphanWilde comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: fubarobfusco 20 July 2012 10:10:47PM 4 points [-]

Conservation of expected evidence applies here. If you believe that people responding to your attack on Dawkins constitutes evidence for that attack, then in order to be consistent you have to believe that if people had ignored your attack, then this would be evidence against the attack. Do you believe that?

Comment author: OrphanWilde 24 July 2012 06:09:21AM -1 points [-]

Only provided Dawkins was not in strong support here. There's an asymmetry, because two things have to be true for people to ignore the substance of the argument in favor of the example - they have to care about the substance of the example, and then they have to be offended by the characterization of it. If they don't care about Dawkins, there won't be much to be offended about to begin with.

A implies B does not imply that B implies A.

But none of that matters, because that was a tongue-in-cheek response to somebody pursuing a line of argument about something I didn't care about. It was not a serious response.

OrphanWilde comments on In Defense of Tone Arguments - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (172)

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 (172)

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