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.

Yvain comments on The Rebuttal Repository - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: peter_hurford 11 August 2013 06:59AM

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

Comments (59)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Yvain 11 August 2013 07:39:44AM *  39 points [-]

I like this idea, but dislike inflation of the word "debunking".

Debunking means something was bunk and has now been conclusively proven wrong .Homeopathy has been debunked, creationism has been debunked, ESP has been debunked.

But when people say things like "Haven't you heard Searle debunked materialism?" or "Here's a link to an argument debunking Obamacare" it seems kind of like epistemological arrogance. It's not just "I disagree with you", but "There is no other side to this, it is now disproven in the same sense creationism is disproven and we can all go home."

I sort of accept the Myers-Briggs link as a debunking, because that fits the central category of "supposedly scientific theory that in fact has very poor support". The others seem more like controversial philosophical or political arguments. They're all really good controversial philosophical/political arguments I agree with, but I bet by the time this list reaches twenty entries some of them won't be.

I admit I don't have a better phrase. "Skeptical Argument Repository"?

Comment author: peter_hurford 11 August 2013 08:33:02AM 6 points [-]

Good points. It is now the "Responses Repository".

Comment author: LanceSBush 11 August 2013 10:37:51AM 4 points [-]

I agree with the above comment that use of the term debunking seems objectionable on "epistemological arrogance" grounds, but 'response' seems a bit too weak. 'Response' doesn't really capture the connotation that the responses given are taken to provide grounds for the position criticized as being less plausible. There may be a better term, and the choice of terminology in this germinal stage of concocting some type of terminology for this sort of thing might be important enough to consider this further.

Comment author: peter_hurford 11 August 2013 11:19:42AM 1 point [-]

I can't really think of anything. Do you have a suggestion?

Comment author: Ben_LandauTaylor 11 August 2013 01:59:00PM 4 points [-]

In rough order of how much I like them:

Rebuttal, counterargument, dissent, refutation, criticism, negation, retort, rejoinder, rejection

Thesauruses are awesome.

Comment author: peter_hurford 11 August 2013 02:00:40PM 12 points [-]

Presto, we're now "The Rebuttal Repository".

But, realistically, right now all we are is a repository of ideas for naming this repository...

Comment author: LanceSBush 11 August 2013 12:20:09PM 0 points [-]

Sorry to be less helpful...if one had occurred to me right away, I'd mention it. Surprisingly, one's not coming to me, either. I like the connotations associated with demystifying, and 'rebuttal' doesn't seem terrible, as it has the connotation of an explicit criticism of some claim or other, without quite so strong a connotation as 'debunk'. However, it's close enough that I think it may fall onto the other side back into the epistemological arrogance category. Maybe refutation? Unfortunately I think introspection fails me on how adequate these terms are since the connotation I take them to have may differ from how others take them - more feedback from others might be more helpful than whatever my own conclusions might be. Response seems sufficient for now at least.

Comment author: Mestroyer 11 August 2013 01:56:45PM 0 points [-]

"Devastating Counterargument Repository"?

Comment author: Tenoke 11 August 2013 10:55:49AM 3 points [-]

Don't worry. I predict that this repository (and some of the other ones) will be largely left unused.